[Legendary Games] Corefinder

[Jason Nelson]

Dragon78 wrote:

Why divide the book into two for martial and magical classes?

Mostly because of the economics of publishing. There's a certain book tipping point of size beyond which it becomes less and less profitable to create and sell a book. Past that point, you're *usually* better off splitting a giant book into two regular-sized books.

Dragon78 wrote:

If you are divided the book into 12/13 classes, what else will be in the books?

Each of our class books tend to include not just the classes themselves but also archetypes, magic items, equipment, feats, skills, alternate class features, sample characters, and sometimes additional rule subsystems relevant to the class, and these compilations will as well.

Dragon78 wrote:

So Corefinder will still be usable with Pathfinder APs, Modules, etc.?

That's the intention.

[Dragon78]

Will there be any changes to monsters and/or monster types/subtypes?

What stuff(class features, magic items, racial abilities, skills, spells, etc.) are you keeping the same?

[OmniMage]

A few random ideas.

How about making the Rogue's ability to disable magic traps a feat instead of a class feature? Alternatively, you could make it so any class could disable magic traps; not be a special feature of the Rogue class.

The ability to use poison could be a feat instead of a class feature, so its not exclusive to classes like the Assassin.

[deuxhero]

N. Jolly wrote:

If we do something with a dragon race, we have our own draconic race to use since you can't really just do dragonborn

Dragonblood Human was included in the d20 Modern OGL material. Would need an extensive rework to be playable (it was so totally not worth the LA). No fluff included (or real clear idea of what they actually are) though.

I'd ultimately prefer something of a planetouched equivalent with some customization to buff kobolds with breath weapons. Pick if you want wings, claws, breath weapon and/or senses and all of them scale with level and spend feats to get more picks. That or just full blown actual (four legs, wings) dragon (hey, it worked for Fantasycraft!).

[CorvusMask]

Does any of 3rd party PF1e continuation attempts do anything to fix the high level buff burden or the pain of building up high level npcs or monsters from scratch?

[kevin_video]

OmniMage wrote:

The ability to use poison could be a feat instead of a class feature, so its not exclusive to classes like the Assassin.

What? It's not exclusive at all. There's a dozen ways to get it, including base race abilities. The easiest ways to get it is as a 1st level ninja or 1st level oracle with the toxic blood curse, or taking it as a talent as a rogue or slayer at level 2.

[N. Jolly]

deuxhero wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

If we do something with a dragon race, we have our own draconic race to use since you can't really just do dragonborn

Dragonblood Human was included in the d20 Modern OGL material. Would need an extensive rework to be playable (it was so totally not worth the LA). No fluff included (or real clear idea of what they actually are) though.

I'd ultimately prefer something of a planetouched equivalent with some customization to buff kobolds with breath weapons. Pick if you want wings, claws, breath weapon and/or senses and all of them scale with level and spend feats to get more picks. That or just full blown actual (four legs, wings) dragon (hey, it worked for Fantasycraft!).

You've literally just listed what LG's draconic race does, the wrymtouched. It's a buildable race that can have tons of different draconic features and be as draconic as you want it while having heritage ranging from chromatic, to linnorm and all sorts of other things.

[Jason Nelson]

CorvusMask wrote:

Does any of 3rd party PF1e continuation attempts do anything to fix the high level buff burden or the pain of building up high level npcs or monsters from scratch?

Yes. Corefinder is aimed at doing both of those things.

[CorvusMask]

Hopefully that does also include magic rebalancing, I'm kind of sick of the final caster boss of campaign being completely defeated by failing reflex save vs sunbeam or everything illusion based being instantly defeated by true sight :p(except for greater invisibility combined with mind blank which is another sort of cheese let's be honest)

But yeah, my venting out aside, that is good

[pad300]

CorvusMask wrote:

Hopefully that does also include magic rebalancing, I'm kind of sick of the final caster boss of campaign being completely defeated by failing reflex save vs sunbeam or everything illusion based being instantly defeated by true sight :p(except for greater invisibility combined with mind blank which is another sort of cheese let's be honest)

But yeah, my venting out aside, that is good

I would strongly urge you to be quite careful when doing this. One of the major reasons that PF2 doesn't work for me as a system, is the magic "rebalancing" that basically comes down to "magic isn't special at all"...

All in a quest for "Balance", apparently in opposition to fun... Especially as they also threw out all nods to believability/immersion as well while chasing "Balance".

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Part of the reason magic was a bit more balanced in 2e was the initiative system which allowed spells to be easily interrupted, and that it took 10 minutes per spell level to prepare spells. I have considered reintroducing the latter, since it means that players of high level characters are very careful which spells they throw out since it will take them hours or even days to regain all used spells.

[Anguish]

pad300 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Hopefully that does also include magic rebalancing, I'm kind of sick of the final caster boss of campaign being completely defeated by failing reflex save vs sunbeam or everything illusion based being instantly defeated by true sight :p(except for greater invisibility combined with mind blank which is another sort of cheese let's be honest)

But yeah, my venting out aside, that is good

I would strongly urge you to be quite careful when doing this. One of the major reasons that PF2 doesn't work for me as a system, is the magic "rebalancing" that basically comes down to "magic isn't special at all"...

All in a quest for "Balance", apparently in opposition to fun... Especially as they also threw out all nods to believability/immersion as well while chasing "Balance".

So far discussions have been towards improving fun. With magic balancing, it's possible a couple of the most exceptional spells might get toned down a touch, but there doesn't sound to be a blanket nerf coming. I love the feel of PF1, and I don't get the impression that's going to change significantly.

A good way that's been put is that martials will likely be brought up to meet casters.

[N. Jolly]

pad300 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Hopefully that does also include magic rebalancing, I'm kind of sick of the final caster boss of campaign being completely defeated by failing reflex save vs sunbeam or everything illusion based being instantly defeated by true sight :p(except for greater invisibility combined with mind blank which is another sort of cheese let's be honest)

But yeah, my venting out aside, that is good

I would strongly urge you to be quite careful when doing this. One of the major reasons that PF2 doesn't work for me as a system, is the magic "rebalancing" that basically comes down to "magic isn't special at all"...

All in a quest for "Balance", apparently in opposition to fun... Especially as they also threw out all nods to believability/immersion as well while chasing "Balance".

So this is complicated, because for one person 'fun' is landing a first round color spray and instantly winning, while for others the more drawn out encounter is more fun. Ideally, we're going to try to shut down 'I win' buttons while keeping magic interesting and unique.

[kevin_video]

I'm all for "save or suck" abilities and spells being revamped.

[Jason Nelson]

Jolly states it well in that Corefinder is working to flatten out a lot of the binary WIN/LOSE buttons in the game. You can still get there, but you need to work harder to get there, and you're far less likely to just get totally ganked by a single roll of the die in any direction.

[Jason Nelson]

As an aside, our Corefinder Design Digest Patreon posts run on a one-week delay. While we would LOVE to have you join our Patreon and support the project (and get lots of other great benefits, with sponsorships as low as $1 a month), starting tomorrow those posts start going live to the public, and we'll be sharing them here on the Paizo boards too!

[kevin_video]

I’m assuming saves are being adjusted too to compensate, as I do know that there are definitely players who invest 99% of their points to their main casting stat. This allows them to defeat enemies quickly so they themselves don’t immediately die during battle. It’s definitely something that’s abused for power gamers, but I know it’s also a defense against brutal GMs too.

[Thedmstrikes]

kevin_video wrote:

I’m assuming saves are being adjusted too to compensate, as I do know that there are definitely players who invest 99% of their points to their main casting stat. This allows them to defeat enemies quickly so they themselves don’t immediately die during battle. It’s definitely something that’s abused for power gamers, but I know it’s also a defense against brutal GMs too.

KV, I do not think there is an answer for this yet as they have not looked hard at the magic system. Many of the designers have some ideas, but they are still finishing up the basics which does not touch on anything fantasy yet.

[kevin_video]

Thedmstrikes wrote:

kevin_video wrote:

I’m assuming saves are being adjusted too to compensate, as I do know that there are definitely players who invest 99% of their points to their main casting stat. This allows them to defeat enemies quickly so they themselves don’t immediately die during battle. It’s definitely something that’s abused for power gamers, but I know it’s also a defense against brutal GMs too.

KV, I do not think there is an answer for this yet as they have not looked hard at the magic system. Many of the designers have some ideas, but they are still finishing up the basics which does not touch on anything fantasy yet.

No problem. I'll entrust that they know what they're doing, both in what they should and shouldn't do.

[glass]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Part of the reason magic was a bit more balanced in 2e was the initiative system which allowed spells to be easily interrupted, and that it took 10 minutes per spell level to prepare spells.

You seem to be talking about AD&D 2e, whereas I am the posts above yours were talking about Pathfinder 2e. Just mentioning it case of confusion....

_
glass.

[pad300]

N. Jolly wrote:

So this is complicated, because for one person 'fun' is landing a first round color spray and instantly winning, while for others the more drawn out encounter is more fun. Ideally, we're going to try to shut down 'I win' buttons while keeping magic interesting and unique.

Yep, that can be a thing. But I was more speaking to:

Wizard:"I can learn teleport! We can go to Absalom!"

Fighter:"We'd get there faster booking passage on a ship..."

A 6th level PF2 teleport spell can go 100 miles. A ship will go 24 hrs/day at 6+ knots = 24*6 = 144 nautical miles = 166 miles

[Anguish]

pad300 wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

So this is complicated, because for one person 'fun' is landing a first round color spray and instantly winning, while for others the more drawn out encounter is more fun. Ideally, we're going to try to shut down 'I win' buttons while keeping magic interesting and unique.

Yep, that can be a thing. But I was more speaking to:

Wizard:"I can learn teleport! We can go to Absalom!"

Fighter:"We'd get there faster booking passage on a ship..."

A 6th level PF2 teleport spell can go 100 miles. A ship will go 24 hrs/day at 6+ knots = 24*6 = 144 nautical miles = 166 miles

One of the things that's been discussed is making certain things "rituals", which (theoretically) anyone can access. So in your scenario, the fighter might respond "oh, you don't need to bother learning that... I can sit down, do a thing, a thing, and another thing, and we all join hands and I will get us there."

Details on how such a thing would work not yet examined, but the idea is to empower non-casters, partially by making some utility magic available to everyone outside of combat. The fighter wouldn't actually become a gish (martial-caster).

The intent that's been discussed is to enable martials to have more impact on storytelling. Giving them more agency. But at the same time, not remove the higher-end flashy magic. A wizard would - in theory - be able to teleport in an encounter.

Once again, I'd like to be clear that this is just me relating some of what's been noodled about in the Discord, mostly between players/fans. This isn't official, and while Legendary staff have participating in the conversations, this shouldn't be taken as "the way it will be."

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

glass wrote:

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Part of the reason magic was a bit more balanced in 2e was the initiative system which allowed spells to be easily interrupted, and that it took 10 minutes per spell level to prepare spells.

You seem to be talking about AD&D 2e, whereas I am the posts above yours were talking about Pathfinder 2e. Just mentioning it case of confusion....

_
glass.

No confusion on my part, just pointing out you could reintroduce an old mechanic to limit spellcasters without nerfing the actual spells.

For instance, The last mage duel I ran would have required the PC to spend the better part two days regaining used spells. They may not have such luxury on adventure, and be more careful with what they cast. not to mention it plays to the stereotypes of wizards to spend hours each day with a nose in a book, or clerics spending hours in prayer.

pad300 wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

So this is complicated, because for one person 'fun' is landing a first round color spray and instantly winning, while for others the more drawn out encounter is more fun. Ideally, we're going to try to shut down 'I win' buttons while keeping magic interesting and unique.

Yep, that can be a thing. But I was more speaking to:

Wizard:"I can learn teleport! We can go to Absalom!"

Fighter:"We'd get there faster booking passage on a ship..."

A 6th level PF2 teleport spell can go 100 miles. A ship will go 24 hrs/day at 6+ knots = 24*6 = 144 nautical miles = 166 miles

Given that:

a) you are in a port
b) your destination is another port
c) can book passage and leave immediately
d) the ship is going where you need
e) weather is good
f) no random encounters that slow you down (and in D&D how likely is that?)
g) wizard only has 1 6th level spell to use

In most cases, teleport seems the better option, even in P2.

[JoelF847]

Anguish wrote:

pad300 wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

So this is complicated, because for one person 'fun' is landing a first round color spray and instantly winning, while for others the more drawn out encounter is more fun. Ideally, we're going to try to shut down 'I win' buttons while keeping magic interesting and unique.

Yep, that can be a thing. But I was more speaking to:

Wizard:"I can learn teleport! We can go to Absalom!"

Fighter:"We'd get there faster booking passage on a ship..."

A 6th level PF2 teleport spell can go 100 miles. A ship will go 24 hrs/day at 6+ knots = 24*6 = 144 nautical miles = 166 miles

One of the things that's been discussed is making certain things "rituals", which (theoretically) anyone can access. So in your scenario, the fighter might respond "oh, you don't need to bother learning that... I can sit down, do a thing, a thing, and another thing, and we all join hands and I will get us there."

Details on how such a thing would work not yet examined, but the idea is to empower non-casters, partially by making some utility magic available to everyone outside of combat. The fighter wouldn't actually become a gish (martial-caster).

The intent that's been discussed is to enable martials to have more impact on storytelling. Giving them more agency. But at the same time, not remove the higher-end flashy magic. A wizard would - in theory - be able to teleport in an encounter.

Once again, I'd like to be clear that this is just me relating some of what's been noodled about in the Discord, mostly between players/fans. This isn't official, and while Legendary staff have participating in the conversations, this shouldn't be taken as "the way it will be."

I'm all for having rituals, as PF1 does (even if introduced much later in the development cycle), but not for rituals which non casters can use, uggh, no thanks. I'm fine with non-casters who have ranks in knowledge arcana or whatever helping in a ritual, or even leading it, but somewhere there needs to be some magic to power it, not just a bunch of fighters deciding to teleport.

For me, having non-magical characters is a feature, not a bug. If they want to do magic, there's a way to do that, by learning magic and taking levels or abilities which grant them magic, not a zero opportunity cost ritual which makes magic even more common than it already is.

I'd even be supportive of moving many of the longer casting time spells to be rituals, such as restoration, raise dead, etc, and some major utility spells like telport. That would reduce the hard trade off between useful battle magic and critical utility spells, and also move a few spells like teleport out of the realm of instant escape and the players would need a spot for a 10 minute ritual to get out of dodge, which might make things a lot diceier and eliminate the high level option of hit and run with teleporting.

[Set]

JoelF847 wrote:

I'm all for having rituals, as PF1 does (even if introduced much later in the development cycle), but not for rituals which non casters can use, uggh, no thanks. I'm fine with non-casters who have ranks in knowledge arcana or whatever helping in a ritual, or even leading it, but somewhere there needs to be some magic to power it, not just a bunch of fighters deciding to teleport.

For me, having non-magical characters is a feature, not a bug. If they want to do magic, there's a way to do that, by learning magic and taking levels or abilities which grant them magic, not a zero opportunity cost ritual which makes magic even more common than it already is.

I'd even be supportive of moving many of the longer casting time spells to be rituals, such as restoration, raise dead, etc, and some major utility spells like telport. That would reduce the hard trade off between useful battle magic and critical utility spells, and also move a few spells like teleport out of the realm of instant escape and the players would need a spot for a 10 minute ritual to get out of dodge, which might make things a lot diceier and eliminate the high level option of hit and run with teleporting.

100% agreed, with all of this. Turning spells like teleport, raise dead, scrying/legend lore type divinations, plane shift and permanency into rituals or incantations that could take time, special materials or multiple casters would be ideal, IMO. Put a lot more narrative power back in the GM's hands by making some of these potentially world changing non-combat spells into more of a strategic/big-picture story element roll, and less of a 'ok, you hit 9th level and can teleport and raise dead, so death and distance are now speed bumps...'

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I've never understood the complaint that distance should remain a meaningful obstacle at higher levels. If anything, keeping travel spells the way they are is another way of limiting caster power; if they need to dedicate a number of slots or items for fly/teleport/whatever then those are slots not filled with spells to overcome other obstacles. Also, why shouldn't PCs be able to bypass boring random encounters and get straight to the interesting bits of the adventure? Saves time for everyone and makes thigns easier for me as a GM.

So as far as I am concerned, please don't turn current spells into rituals, certainly not allow non-casters access to them - that was yet another thing I hated about 4e.
You could introduce something similar to 2e cooperative magic, Red Wizard circle magic, or the ritual spells introduced in Sword & Sorcery Studios' "Relics and Rituals" which were basically just spells more powerful than others of their level but required more casters, including lay-people, to pull off.

[Dragon78]

Any spell with a casting time of 1 minute or more should be a ritual. But I highly disagree about teleport and plane shift spells being rituals. Those are emergency spells to get out of bad situations.

[glass]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

No confusion on my part, just pointing out you could reintroduce an old mechanic to limit spellcasters without nerfing the actual spells.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were confused. Just that other people reading the thread (some of whom were probably not born when AD&D was current) could be.

_
glass.

[pad300]

I do like the existence of rituals in a game, they allow you to smooth over a mechanically iffy bits, as well as adding cool flavor.
For example, you want to have a low-level adventure fighting Sahaugin & such (classically U1-2-3) without rituals, the party has to burn much of their spells on multiple copies of Water Breathing, which really limits the play participation of the spellcasters.
With a 5th ed style ritual, you have both a water breathing spell for emergencies, and a water breathing ritual to do adventure set up. I actually like that a lot, especially as it gives solutions to things like the cleric needing to have a restoration or 2 memorized in case of spectres...
Not to mention it means that spontaneous casters don't get gimped by corner cases; for example, a party with an oracle and a sorcerer doesn't often have access to water breathing as a spell... so no U1-3 for them.

[kevin_video]

I'm fine with teleportation circle being a ritual. Maybe make it a lower level spell like in 5e, and have the 9th level version be a greater version of the spell. Just like teleport and greater teleport.

[Jason Nelson]

The first Corefinder Design Digest: Rolling for Stats... or Not! is now up and available for everyone!

[kevin_video]

Jason Nelson wrote:

The first Corefinder Design Digest: Rolling for Stats... or Not! is now up and available for everyone!

I'm already liking the new rules. Nothing below a 9 before racial penalties and the ability to balance out stats if you roll garbage except for a couple of good ones. There have definitely been times where I wish I could have dropped an 18 to something lower to I could boost my 6 or 8 stat.

I'm intrigued by the whole "increase a stat" every level. You'd think it'd almost be easier to use the PF2 or Starfinder rules, but have them kick in at every 4th level instead of 5th, but only choose two ability scores instead of four. Hmm.

[Dragon78]

I really love the +1 stat boost at every level with a stat max limit of 18 +1/2 your Lv.

[Dragon78]

Didn't notice that you also get a free +2 to any one stat at level 1(18 Max).

Can we change the point buy cost?

17- 12 instead of 13.

18- 15 instead of 17.

Better yet make it that it is a point to the stat cost, so 16 would cost 6 not 10. Maybe make it were the max base stat is 16 not including racial bonuses and the bonus +2.

So a 20 point buy would give you a base of 16, 16, 16, 12, 10, 10 or 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 10.

[pad300]

"Leveling Up: Every time you gain a level, you can increase any ability score by 1. However, no PC ability score can exceed a maximum of 18 plus one-half your level."

Ok, so does that include other bonuses : inherent, enhancement, ??? (profane from a succubi, whatever)?

[JoelF847]

Is the "everyone gets a +2" instead of racial adjustments or in addition to racial adjustments?

[OmniMage]

Can you start at first level with ability scores of 20? You could do that in pathfinder. It feels like a small downgrade to reduce the cap a little at first level.

Another problem. Since characters get to improve one of their ability scores each level, it is temping to buy ability scores low, and use their +1 ability each level to get high ability scores over time. I did some math and with a 25 point buy, you're starting ability score can be 4x 14, 1x 13 and 1x 12. I'm not sure if that is your intent.

[kevin_video]

JoelF847 wrote:

Is the "everyone gets a +2" instead of racial adjustments or in addition to racial adjustments?

That looks to be the case, yeah. It's kind of in-line with PF2's rule set. We'll know for sure once we see the new racial adjustments.

OmniMage wrote:

Can you start at first level with ability scores of 20? You could do that in pathfinder. It feels like a small downgrade to reduce the cap a little at first level.

Another problem. Since characters get to improve one of their ability scores each level, it is temping to buy ability scores low, and use their +1 ability each level to get high ability scores over time. I did some math and with a 25 point buy, you're starting ability score can be 4x 14, 1x 13 and 1x 12. I'm not sure if that is your intent.

It's reading like you can't get a 20 at 1st level. As for it being a small downgrade, considering the new rule is 18 + half level for your max stat, meaning you can't go higher than 28 at 20th, as written now, PF 1e with the right capstone you could get a 33 before magic items, topping you out at 44. This version doesn't seem to allow that.

That likely wasn't their objective, but most games don't do 25 point buy. If you take it as per the adventure paths, it's usually 15 points, or 20 points for Organized Play. I can see GMs sticking to the older numbers. Still, that's a good point to bring up.

[Jason Nelson]

Corefinder Design Digest #2: Bonuses is up!

[Jason Nelson]

JoelF847 wrote:

Is the "everyone gets a +2" instead of racial adjustments or in addition to racial adjustments?

Instead of. Pick what you want to play. Put your stat boost wherever you want it.

Non-Medium creatures have a special case rule relating to some things relating to overall size/strength but it doesn't affect your base ability score per se.

[Jason Nelson]

pad300 wrote:

"Leveling Up: Every time you gain a level, you can increase any ability score by 1. However, no PC ability score can exceed a maximum of 18 plus one-half your level."

Ok, so does that include other bonuses : inherent, enhancement, ??? (profane from a succubi, whatever)?

The next Design Digest talks about condensing bonus types, but this limit applies to your base ability score. How and what bonuses are and do is a little different from PFRPG.

As a general rule, we're only able to put so much out at a time, so each individual preview bit will necessarily give an incomplete picture. The base system is rooted very much in PFRPG, but it's not going to be identical. Some changes are small, others are bigger, but the numbers still should land near enough on the GM side to use existing monsters and adventures with a dose of handwavium.

[Dragon78]

The 2nd design digest needs some examples.

Example:

Fighter

BA-Excellent
Skills-varies
Fort-Excellent or good
Ref-Low
Will-Standard or good

[Dragon78]

As long as it is backwards compatible and no real changes for the bestiaries/monsters.

[JoelF847]

Interesting tidbits buried in digest #2:

1) does the expertise bonus mean all classes get better at all skills, but at different rates (low, standard, good, excellent)?
2) base magic bonus seems like it would be excellent for full casters, but standard for rangers/paladins, and good for bards/inquisitors perhaps?
3) Perception checks are called out separately from skills, suggesting that all characters have it by default, rather than spending skill points on it. I do hope that you can have different BBs for Perception and initiatve than for the rest of Expertise BB. Maybe a barbarian is only good Expertise BB, but Excellent Perception for example.
4) Guessing that you can get feats/archetypes, etc to bump a particular bonus up a step, similar to Defensive Combat Training bumping your CMD to Excellent.

[SunKing]

JoelF847 wrote:

Interesting tidbits buried in digest #2:

1) does the expertise bonus mean all classes get better at all skills, but at different rates (low, standard, good, excellent)?
2) base magic bonus seems like it would be excellent for full casters, but standard for rangers/paladins, and good for bards/inquisitors perhaps?
3) Perception checks are called out separately from skills, suggesting that all characters have it by default, rather than spending skill points on it. I do hope that you can have different BBs for Perception and initiatve than for the rest of Expertise BB. Maybe a barbarian is only good Expertise BB, but Excellent Perception for example.
4) Guessing that you can get feats/archetypes, etc to bump a particular bonus up a step, similar to Defensive Combat Training bumping your CMD to Excellent.

Watching closely to see how Perception is going to be handled. The lack of clarity in the current rules is a real bugbear for me. When do you get to do it? How much of an area are you taking in when you do? Does an active search give you a bonus over a passive one (dare I say, a ‘spot’ check?)?

[Jason Nelson]

SunKing wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

Interesting tidbits buried in digest #2:

1) does the expertise bonus mean all classes get better at all skills, but at different rates (low, standard, good, excellent)?
2) base magic bonus seems like it would be excellent for full casters, but standard for rangers/paladins, and good for bards/inquisitors perhaps?
3) Perception checks are called out separately from skills, suggesting that all characters have it by default, rather than spending skill points on it. I do hope that you can have different BBs for Perception and initiatve than for the rest of Expertise BB. Maybe a barbarian is only good Expertise BB, but Excellent Perception for example.
4) Guessing that you can get feats/archetypes, etc to bump a particular bonus up a step, similar to Defensive Combat Training bumping your CMD to Excellent.

Watching closely to see how Perception is going to be handled. The lack of clarity in the current rules is a real bugbear for me. When do you get to do it? How much of an area are you taking in when you do? Does an active search give you a bonus over a passive one (dare I say, a ‘spot’ check?)?

Rest assured that vision, concealment, stealth, and hiding are all getting loving attention.

[Jason Nelson]

JoelF847 wrote:

Interesting tidbits buried in digest #2:

1) does the expertise bonus mean all classes get better at all skills, but at different rates (low, standard, good, excellent)?
2) base magic bonus seems like it would be excellent for full casters, but standard for rangers/paladins, and good for bards/inquisitors perhaps?
3) Perception checks are called out separately from skills, suggesting that all characters have it by default, rather than spending skill points on it. I do hope that you can have different BBs for Perception and initiatve than for the rest of Expertise BB. Maybe a barbarian is only good Expertise BB, but Excellent Perception for example.
4) Guessing that you can get feats/archetypes, etc to bump a particular bonus up a step, similar to Defensive Combat Training bumping your CMD to Excellent.

Perception is no longer a skill in CF, kind of like Concentration got changed from a skill to an attribute in Pathfinder.

[Dragon78]

I hate it when they make perception a non-skill, you can no longer use things like skill focus, skilled kineticist(greater) utility wild talent, etc. on it plus some people like being bad at it (and other skills). Personally the only problem I have with skills(other then a few DCs) is that there isn't enough skill points. I think all martial classes should get 6+Int mod, casters getting 4+Int mod, skill monkeys getting 8-10+Int mod, kineticist getting 6+Int mod, mid casting(6th) classes get 4-6+Int mod. Also I think all skills should be class skills for all classes.

As for skills and DCs.

Acrobatics to tumble should be DC15+CR and passing through an enemy's squire DC20+CR.

It's a fantasy world, you should be able to jump high without needing an insanely high modifier.

Also get rid of CMD and make it just the target's AC.

[JoelF847]

Dragon78 wrote:

I hate it when they make perception a non-skill, you can no longer use things like skill focus, skilled kineticist(greater) utility wild talent, etc. on it plus some people like being bad at it (and other skills). Personally the only problem I have with skills(other then a few DCs) is that there isn't enough skill points. I think all martial classes should get 6+Int mod, casters getting 4+Int mod, skill monkeys getting 8-10+Int mod, kineticist getting 6+Int mod, mid casting(6th) classes get 4-6+Int mod. Also I think all skills should be class skills for all classes.

As for skills and DCs.

Acrobatics to tumble should be DC15+CR and passing through an enemy's squire DC20+CR.

It's a fantasy world, you should be able to jump high without needing an insanely high modifier.

Also get rid of CMD and make it just the target's AC.

I hope most DCs are not tied to CR. That makes most monsters too "the same". Hope that DCs are instead tied to secondary scores to allow for more variability. High Dex monsters should be harder to tumble through or past, high Str monsters should be harder to bull rush, etc.

[SunKing]

JoelF847 wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

I hate it when they make perception a non-skill, you can no longer use things like skill focus, skilled kineticist(greater) utility wild talent, etc. on it plus some people like being bad at it (and other skills). Personally the only problem I have with skills(other then a few DCs) is that there isn't enough skill points. I think all martial classes should get 6+Int mod, casters getting 4+Int mod, skill monkeys getting 8-10+Int mod, kineticist getting 6+Int mod, mid casting(6th) classes get 4-6+Int mod. Also I think all skills should be class skills for all classes.

As for skills and DCs.

Acrobatics to tumble should be DC15+CR and passing through an enemy's squire DC20+CR.

It's a fantasy world, you should be able to jump high without needing an insanely high modifier.

Also get rid of CMD and make it just the target's AC.

I hope most DCs are not tied to CR. That makes most monsters too "the same". Hope that DCs are instead tied to secondary scores to allow for more variability. High Dex monsters should be harder to tumble through or past, high Str monsters should be harder to bull rush, etc.

I’m in earnest agreement to this point.

Similarly, Knowledge checks in monsters shouldn’t be tied to CR. May I humbly recommend my house rule that is tied the rarity/awareness of the monster: common: DC 10; uncommon DC 15; rare DC 20; very rare DC 25.

Sure - it adds an entry to the stat block. But I’m personally of the view it’s worth it....