| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they all changed, but I can't be sure. The only one I knew was the dusty rose (+2 CMB/CMD) which took a significant hit (+1 CMB).
EURGH I know this isn't the thread to complain about this but EURGH.
What changed in the Pathfinder Savant? I've got a character moving in that direction, he's almost qualifying.
He will still qualify for the new version -- the prerequisites are unchanged.
The major changes involved adding three more levels to the class -- I did not notice any significant differences in the first seven levels.
*Looks at nerfs*
*Ponders*
*TRIGGERED SCREECHING*
On the bright side, the nerfs weren't as bad as PFS planetouched age categories.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they all changed, but I can't be sure. The only one I knew was the dusty rose (+2 CMB/CMD) which took a significant hit (+1 CMB).Another hit to combat maneuver builds? Along with the Lore Warden it looks like Paizo really wants people to use combat maneuvers even less than the 1% of players that were actually using them. Yay more uneeded stealth balance changes!
I'm not happy with this. Combat maneuvers already require an insane amount of resources (feats, magic items, etc) to be viable. Now they are even less workable. What's even worse is they are nerfing the few ways to increase your defense against combat maneuvers. Seriously, most monsters that use combat maneuvers succeed on a 2 against most characters and they are taking away the few defenses against them while also making it even more difficult for pc's to succeed at combat maneuvers. It's getting pretty ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. It seems like a passive-aggressive way of avoiding actually saying "stop using combat maneuvers". Either that, or a demonstration that those making the changes haven't actually tried using combat maneuvers against non-bipeds (and think a lower bonus would work just fine.)
I tried to bull rush a bull the other day, and I imagine the Paizo development team would have similar results if they tried it, I'm reasonably certain they're scrawnier than I am.
If combat maneuvers against larger creatures with or without extra legs were easy then it would be pretty reasonable to have a feat with a BAB and Str requirement that lets you fly by flapping your hands really hard. But both seem absurd to me.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they all changed, but I can't be sure. The only one I knew was the dusty rose (+2 CMB/CMD) which took a significant hit (+1 CMB).EURGH I know this isn't the thread to complain about this but EURGH.
Nearly every build I've done (4 of 9) has used Lore Warden and dusty rose in way finder.
It was beautiful, elegant, powerful and to be honest broken.I'm sad to see it gone, but you could build characters that succeed at CMB against nearly every monster in normal non epic encounters with "don't roll a 1" success rates.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Extended to 10 levels, rather than 7, continuing the same base progression.
- Lost Craft and Profession as class skills.
- In addition to its old effects, Adept Activation now says you no longer fail Use Magic Device checks on a 1.
- Esoteric magic now allows for psychic spells as well as arcane and divine spells.
- At 8th-level, you gain Symbol Master. When you cast any symbol spell, the save DC to resist its effects, the Perception DC to notice the symbol, and the Disable Device DC to remove the symbol increase by 2. Once per day as an immediate action, you can double the bonus granted by your Sigil Master ability. You do not automatically fail a saving throw against a symbol effect on a natural 1.
- At 9th level, you gain Spellcasting Master. You can focus your mind three times per day as a swift action. Any spells you cast for the remainder of that round do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Spells with a duration of concentration that you cast in this round persist for a number of rounds after you cease concentrating equal to your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier (whichever is highest).
- At 10th level, you gain Item Master. You can attune a single magical item to yourself. That specific item can use your caster level to resolve its effects rather than the item’s caster level. Only one such item at a time.
- Loss of class skills isn't a nerf, since every heroic class gets the lost skills anyways.
- You can now literally poach any spell of 8th-level or lower from any class in the game, up to NINE times! If taken with a 9th-level caster (I recommend arcanist), this prestige class basically makes you into the best spellcaster in the game.
- I imagine people don't run into symbol spell traps very often, but when they do, having up to a +20 bonus to saves against it (and not failing on a one) is going to be damned useful!
- Don't provoke for casting? YES PLEASE! No need to concentrate on spells? OMG YES!
- Loving the captstone ability; the ability to use items such as hats of disguise or rings of invisibility with longer duration is REALLY cool! You could also use a supercharged ring of telekinesis or the like now too.
Overall a big boost for this prestige class! Now that we have feats like Prestigious Spellcaster to counteract the caster level loss, dare I say this prestige class is now a must have?
|
PATHFINDER SAVANT (same except where noted)
- Extended to 10 levels, rather than 7.
- Lost craft and profession as class skills.
- In addition to old effects, Adept Activation now says you don't fail UMD checks on a 1.
- Esoteric magic now allows for psychic spells as well as arcane and divine.
- Symbol Master (Su): At 8th-level, when you cast any symbol spell, the save DC to resist its effects, the Perception DC to notice the symbol, and the Disable Device DC to remove the symbol increase by 2. Once per day as an immediate action, you can double the bonus granted by your sigil master ability. You do not automatically fail a saving throw against a symbol effect on a natural 1.
- Spellcasting Master (Ex): At 9th level, you can focus your mind three times per day as a swift action. Any spells hyou cast for the remainder of that round do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Spells with a duration of concentration that you cast in this round persist for a number of rounds after you cease concentrating equal to your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier (whichever is highest).
- Item Master (Su): At 10th level, you can attune a single item to yourself. That specific item can use your caster level to resolve its effects rather than the item’s caster level. Only one such item at a time.
That's pretty cool. No relevant change at the levels I expect to reach in PFS, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's probably the reason they nerfed Tribal Scars, because it was the equivalent of six levels' worth of Toughness, half of one of the skill enhancer feats for two skills, or half of one of the save enhancer feats for the lowly cost of having to be affiliated in some way with the Mammoth Lords.
People were starting at 1st with like more HP than the rest of the party combined.
In other news, I saw Tribal Scars on Luthorne's big list of content. I'd be surprised if that feat made it into the Adventurer's Guide without losing something big. (My money's on the bonus hp being reduced or removed entirely, since that would get it to about standard feat levels.)The bonus hit points have been removed entirely; it appears to otherwise be identical.
Boo!!!
Human barbarians with 25 hp at level one was always a cool idea.
Toughness, Tribal Scars, Con 16, Level Bonus, 12D
3+6+3+1+12 = 25
Grumble grumble...
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PATHFINDER SAVANT (same except where noted)
...
- In addition to old effects, Adept Activation now says you don't fail UMD checks on a 1.
How exactly is this worded? Is this something like "1 now autosucceeds because class feature"?
Normally a '1' on a skill check isn't an automatic failure anyway, and the clause in UMD dealing with a natural 1 isn't worded like that either. "...if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail..." So, under the current rules, rolling a 1 should only fail is your skill bonus is too low anyway.
I think you just identified a candidate for errata then. The statement in this book actually does say "A Pathfinder savant does not automatically fail a Use Magic Device check if he rolls a natural 1 on the check." That statement should probably be rephrased to negate the inability to try again after failing a UMD check by rolling a natural 1.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Another one that could use some clarification on the Pathfinder Savant's Quick Identification ability.
The spell-like ability essentially says you "can use identify as a swift action (caster level equals your character level)."
Does that mean you can cast it as a swift action, but must still use 3 rounds to identify an item?
Or does it mean you can straight up identify an item as a swift action?
It's unclear, as it says "use" rather than "cast" identify as a swift action.
(I've created a dedicated thread posing this question, please discuss it there.)
@RD and David: Thanks for the post. Was worried the core of the class changed (ie: Esoteric Magic) and the great Scroll stuff.
Another one that could use some clarification on the Pathfinder Savant's Quick Identification ability.
The spell-like ability essentially says you "can use identify as a swift action (caster level equals your character level)."
Does that mean you can cast it as a swift action, but must still use 3 rounds to identify an item?
Or does it mean you can straight up identify an item as a swift action?
It's unclear, as it says "use" rather than "cast" identify as a swift action.
(I've created a dedicated thread posing this question, please discuss it there.)
Wouldn't casting a spell as a swift action that takes 3 rounds to be actually done be useless?
|
I think you just identified a candidate for errata then. The statement in this book actually does say "A Pathfinder savant does not automatically fail a Use Magic Device check if he rolls a natural 1 on the check." That statement should probably be rephrased to negate the inability to try again after failing a UMD check by rolling a natural 1.
Or they plan to REALLY piss everybody off by "FAQ"ing UMD so that it fails on a 1.
Or they plan to REALLY piss everybody off by "FAQ"ing UMD so that it fails on a 1.
I think you just identified a candidate for errata then. The statement in this book actually does say "A Pathfinder savant does not automatically fail a Use Magic Device check if he rolls a natural 1 on the check." That statement should probably be rephrased to negate the inability to try again after failing a UMD check by rolling a natural 1.
It's probably a typo that refers to UMD's Retry entry:
"Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or they plan to REALLY piss everybody off by "FAQ"ing UMD so that it fails on a 1.
I think you just identified a candidate for errata then. The statement in this book actually does say "A Pathfinder savant does not automatically fail a Use Magic Device check if he rolls a natural 1 on the check." That statement should probably be rephrased to negate the inability to try again after failing a UMD check by rolling a natural 1.
It's probably a typo that refers to UMD's Retry entry:
"Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours."
This is what I assumed it meant but you never know anymore... :P
The class ability says you doe not automatically fail a Use Magic Device check if you roll a natural 1 on the check.
The skill text says if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.
That means two things need to happen before item lockout occurs: You need to roll a 1, and you need to fail the check.
If you don't roll a 1 or fail the check, then that rule doesn't come into play at all.
Even on a 1, I imagine you'd be hard pressed to fail, what with a +2 or +4 from Magical Aptitude and anywhere from a +1 to +5 from the prestige class, AND the ability to always take 10.
I'm not really seeing the problem.
I think they all changed, but I can't be sure. The only one I knew was the dusty rose (+2 CMB/CMD) which took a significant hit (+1 CMB).EURGH I know this isn't the thread to complain about this but EURGH.Nearly every build I've done (4 of 9) has used Lore Warden and dusty rose in way finder.
It was beautiful, elegant, powerful and to be honest broken.I'm sad to see it gone, but you could build characters that succeed at CMB against nearly every monster in normal non epic encounters with "don't roll a 1" success rates.
Broken compared to what?
Wizard?
Cleric?
Warpriest?
Bard?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's probably the reason they nerfed Tribal Scars, because it was the equivalent of six levels' worth of Toughness, half of one of the skill enhancer feats for two skills, or half of one of the save enhancer feats for the lowly cost of having to be affiliated in some way with the Mammoth Lords.
People were starting at 1st with like more HP than the rest of the party combined.
Yes but the point is that skill enhancer feats are actually relatively bad choices compared to other options, as is toughness for most pcs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the context of only fail on a one not clear enough to define it?I think they all changed, but I can't be sure. The only one I knew was the dusty rose (+2 CMB/CMD) which took a significant hit (+1 CMB).EURGH I know this isn't the thread to complain about this but EURGH.Nearly every build I've done (4 of 9) has used Lore Warden and dusty rose in way finder.
It was beautiful, elegant, powerful and to be honest broken.I'm sad to see it gone, but you could build characters that succeed at CMB against nearly every monster in normal non epic encounters with "don't roll a 1" success rates.
Broken compared to what?
Wizard?
Cleric?Warpriest?
Bard?
No but the context of how powerful success is after investing an archetype and anywhere from 3 to 5 feats is compared to what these other classes can do is pretty relevant to the idea of if a thing is broken or not.
|
|
Any changes to Aldori Dueling Disciple and its feat line (for reference: Duelist of the Roaring Falls, Duelist of the Shrouded Lake, and Falling Water Gambit)?Aldori Dueling Disciple - Same
Aldori Dueling Mastery - Functionally the same, but now has some additional parenthetical text explaining what it means to have one hand free, and also says "Although the dueling sword deals slashing damage, you treat it as if it were also a piercing weapon when determining the effects of weapons used by a duelist or swashbuckler."
Duelist of the Roaring Falls - Phrasing is slightly different, but is functionally identical
Duelist of the Shrouded Lake - Same
Falling Water Gambit - Same
There appear to be a couple other Aldori feats as well, including a new Aldori style feat tree.
Something that I saw was if you take ALDORI DEFENDER(FIGHTER ARCHETYPE) there is no point in taking Aldori Dueling Mastery as Defensive Parry is now a shield bonus, and will not stack with Aldori Dueling Mastery.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No but the context of how powerful success is after investing an archetype and anywhere from 3 to 5 feats is compared to what these other classes can do is pretty relevant to the idea of if a thing is broken or not.
No from the point of view of 3-4 levels in a feat heavy class (fighter) and none of the other levels matter as long as they are all full bab. Where a caster must invest far more valuable resource. 7 to 12 class levels, to get the really powerful stuff.
So yea "don't roll a 1" is broken at the same level as "yea that spell just ends fights".
I get you don't likely agree, but building a PC that makes all CMB on a 2 is harder today than last month. Yea it's likely don't roll below a 5 now. But that's 20% fail vs 5% fail. A factors of 4 times.
Yes but the point is that skill enhancer feats are actually relatively bad choices compared to other options, as is toughness for most pcs.That's probably the reason they nerfed Tribal Scars, because it was the equivalent of six levels' worth of Toughness, half of one of the skill enhancer feats for two skills, or half of one of the save enhancer feats for the lowly cost of having to be affiliated in some way with the Mammoth Lords.
People were starting at 1st with like more HP than the rest of the party combined.
Well, skill enhancers are bad choices unless you have a character concept that focuses on a particular skill, and you desire to push that skill as high as you can. I've heard many say that skills are only good up to a certain point value--that the number only needs to be so high before it really doesn't matter anymore, and then I run across
and realized that sometimes it can be incredibly useful to amp those desired skills way up there if it's imperative to the character!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but the context of how powerful success is after investing an archetype and anywhere from 3 to 5 feats is compared to what these other classes can do is pretty relevant to the idea of if a thing is broken or not.No from the point of view of 3-4 levels in a feat heavy class (fighter) and none of the other levels matter as long as they are all full bab. Where a caster must invest far more valuable resource. 7 to 12 class levels, to get the really powerful stuff.
So yea "don't roll a 1" is broken at the same level as "yea that spell just ends fights".
I get you don't likely agree, but building a PC that makes all CMB on a 2 is harder today than last month. Yea it's likely don't roll below a 5 now. But that's 20% fail vs 5% fail. A factors of 4 times.
Sorry to prolong this off-topic divergence, but
Realistically, a lot of these checks aren't going to fail by just 20% anymore, and it was extraordinarily more difficult than other build types to even get them to 5%. Remember, some combat maneuvers take penalties against certain enemies, which meant every +1 you could get was the difference between success and failure, and why being able to replace CMB with an attack roll using certain abilities/weapons was more appealing than a straight CMB check. While you might say that it shouldn't be guaranteed, in place of making a CMB one could have just made a full-attack. And the first of those attacks is most certainly going to be hitting on anything but a 1, since the system is geared heavily to enable that due to AC scaling.
In addition, the more bonuses a CMB build can utilize that get stripped away, the less diversity in builds overall, most grievously hurting classes below a full BaB.
While it's all fair and good to say 'not everything needs to be effective', I'd like to think martials can do something beyond just hitting things with their weapons and doing damage, a chronic problem with the system overall not helped by Paizo's bizarre insistence on nerfing those options. I can definitely understand the Lore Warden change and removing permanent Protection from Evil (that was genuinely broken, honestly), but stripping away bonuses to weak builds is difficult for me to understand from a design perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but the context of how powerful success is after investing an archetype and anywhere from 3 to 5 feats is compared to what these other classes can do is pretty relevant to the idea of if a thing is broken or not.No from the point of view of 3-4 levels in a feat heavy class (fighter) and none of the other levels matter as long as they are all full bab. Where a caster must invest far more valuable resource. 7 to 12 class levels, to get the really powerful stuff.
So yea "don't roll a 1" is broken at the same level as "yea that spell just ends fights".
I get you don't likely agree, but building a PC that makes all CMB on a 2 is harder today than last month. Yea it's likely don't roll below a 5 now. But that's 20% fail vs 5% fail. A factors of 4 times.
If you're only taking 3-4 levels of lore warden you're only getting a +2 to cmb its 7 to get that bonus to +4. So yeah, you're investing similar levels to get similar surety, and you're not even bothering to address whether taking a standard action to do a trip or bull rush or disarm to a single enemy you have to get to melee with compares in any way to summon monster 4.
Also at level 7 gunslingers can, without any feat expenditure, spend a grit to auto disarm/trip.
|
|
Why are you rolling a 1 if you can always take 10 anyway?Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill. You can't aid another on Use Magic Device checks. Only the user of the item may attempt such a check.
Has this ability from the old version of Pathfinder Savant changed?
Adept Activation (Ex): A Pathfinder savant can always take 10 on Use Magic Device checks, except when activating an item blindly.
Seems like Savant is now a go to PrC for certain 9th level casters
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those rejecting the "don't roll a 1", let me clarify this statement to be "for 90% or more of the encounters in a PFS Scenario or Module / Adventure Path up to 11th level, don't roll a 1".
If there is interest, I'll make a spoiler post Sunday night after I'm done with the CON I'm at this weekend detailing all the actual math and raw data to support that.
Seems like Savant is now a go to PrC for certain 9th level casters
Oh god, PrC's are back in vogue it seems. Is this good or bad?
Ah, probably fine. They have been terrible for a long while now.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. It seems like a passive-aggressive way of avoiding actually saying "stop using combat maneuvers". Either that, or a demonstration that those making the changes haven't actually tried using combat maneuvers against non-bipeds (and think a lower bonus would work just fine.)I tried to bull rush a bull the other day, and I imagine the Paizo development team would have similar results if they tried it, I'm reasonably certain they're scrawnier than I am.
If combat maneuvers against larger creatures with or without extra legs were easy then it would be pretty reasonable to have a feat with a BAB and Str requirement that lets you fly by flapping your hands really hard. But both seem absurd to me.
The "muh realism" argument should die in a fire
The "muh realism" argument should die in a fire
Agreed. It seems like a passive-aggressive way of avoiding actually saying "stop using combat maneuvers". Either that, or a demonstration that those making the changes haven't actually tried using combat maneuvers against non-bipeds (and think a lower bonus would work just fine.)I tried to bull rush a bull the other day, and I imagine the Paizo development team would have similar results if they tried it, I'm reasonably certain they're scrawnier than I am.
If combat maneuvers against larger creatures with or without extra legs were easy then it would be pretty reasonable to have a feat with a BAB and Str requirement that lets you fly by flapping your hands really hard. But both seem absurd to me.
I'm sure PP was being sarcastic. q.v. weapon cord nerf.
I wasn't being sarcastic, the only basis for a lack of realism should be magic. Fighter types only make sense in a fantasy setting when it's something like Earthdawn, where everyone (who is a PC) has magical enhancement, normies are high level roadkill without special abilities and lower skill caps if they don't follow a magical adept path.
All mundane classes should be NPC classes in Parhfinder. I don't care if a monk or partial caster has a Su ability allowing them to perform some combat maneuvers on big monsters, but never a fighter.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the resonance changes, the design philosophy was to normalize the bonus to a set gp equivalent of 500 to match the fact that you are effectively getting the bonus from the Wayfinder. Clear Spindle and Dusty Rose were grossly over the effective gp limit.
#PaizoConVersations
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't being sarcastic, the only basis for a lack of realism should be magic. Fighter types only make sense in a fantasy setting when it's something like Earthdawn, where everyone (who is a PC) has magical enhancement, normies are high level roadkill without special abilities and lower skill caps if they don't follow a magical adept path.
All mundane classes should be NPC classes in Parhfinder. I don't care if a monk or partial caster has a Su ability allowing them to perform some combat maneuvers on big monsters, but never a fighter.
I retort with, all 9 level casting classes should be npc only classes. The power differential between them and every other class should be relegated to BBEG status only, but never a PC.