Pathfinder RPG sells out first print run ten days ahead of debut

[Epinephrine]

That's why I get a wand of detect magic or an improved familiar. Then there's classes like swordsage or warlocks that get it all day, too.

Then, at higher levels, the caster just gets a permanencied detect magic or arcane sight. It's just the sort of thing a DM has to know about and purposefully put things into fool it or foil it.

/shrug

Sure, but at low levels those are resources being used, and at higher levels enemies are more apt to use metal doors, have lead lin the walls of their houses, etc. Lead foil-backed drywall is the new evil villain standard.

Plus, I can sunder a wand. I agree though, I'm starting to use Nystuul's Aura to fool it, make them waste time, etc. Plus there's that whole "strong auras can override other auras" thing, it's just that at low level it's more than a little frustrating.

[Zeful]

Pros:
Less dead levels.

Con:
Unnecessary and unimaginative Sorcerer pigeonholing.

[Typewriter]

Pros:
Less dead levels.

Con:
Unnecessary and unimaginative Sorcerer pigeonholing.

I don't really understand why people are so unhappy with the sorceror thing. I've seen a lot of people who don't like the fact that you have to pick a power source, but the only real alternative would have been more choice, but more ambiguity....

[AstralFire]

I don't really understand why people are so unhappy with the sorceror thing. I've seen a lot of people who don't like the fact that you have to pick a power source, but the only real alternative would have been more choice, but more ambiguity....

The Wilder has a fair amount of definition without excluding or requiring 'bloodlines'. It only has one real mechanic besides its manifesting, but that mechanic defines the class very well and puts it firmly as the image of "raw inner power caster."

The Sorcerer was originally supposed to fill that niche. -shrug-

[Myrmex]

Plus, I can sunder a wand.

I'm not really a fan of this style of DMing. "Sure, you can use whatever you want, but if it's giving me a headache, I'm going to contrive a circumstance so I can take it away." I can see the usefulness in certain circumstances, but sundering a wand of detect magic, of all things? Why? Why would an enemy waste a turn in combat to smash the stick tucked into the casters belt instead of smashing his head, unless for purely metagame reasons on the DM's part?

It's like having your toad familiar take watch in the woods and having it get killed because it has been foiling nighttime raids.

Personally, I've never had a problem with detect magic. In fact, I use it as a plot device and a way to move characters to new or different locations in a dungeon, or even as a trap.


The Wilder has a fair amount of definition without excluding or requiring 'bloodlines'. It only has one real mechanic besides its manifesting, but that mechanic defines the class very well and puts it firmly as the image of "raw inner power caster."

The Sorcerer was originally supposed to fill that niche. -shrug-

I think giving the sorc eschew materials as a free feat is a good step in raw inner power direction.

"I am full of magic! I brim with magic! FEEL MY ARCANE WRATH."
*flings bat poop*

[BillyJimBoBob]

ANY game is going to be houseruled. Any game. My friends and I houserule RISK, for christ's sake, because it doesn't make sense how an army can march from Mexico to Berlin in one turn.How does it not make sense? I don't recall any time span being given for a turn in Risk, so what measure of "sense" are you using for your house rule? Context matters if you're looking to something to make sense.

I agree in principal that it's difficult if not impossible to create a game where the rules span hundreds of pages, and where magic is modeled but realism is also important, and avoid incorporating errors. But paizo had a huge advantage in this endeavor. They had an existing game that they were able to examine for years, had a well connected community of gamers due to the advance of the Internet, and had access to a great many mathematical analysis available on more than a few fan sites. All performed free of charge and all available to them, should they choose to give them any weight during their redesign process.

It should have been easy for them to avoid making some of the mistakes that a great many people are calling them out for making. This doesn't mean that their game would be error-free, we've established that. But it should mean that a they had a great many opportunities to avoid having a cantrip, a zero level spell available to every single Wizard during every single play test session, which breaks the game due to being able to be cast at will and due to the ill-considered but quite natural impacts of this on game play.

[Epinephrine]

I'm not really a fan of this style of DMing.
No, of course it's overkill to go out of your way sundering belted wands.

But if a character is using a wand repeatedly it is much more likely to be in hand. If the attacker is not a caster, and has no idea what it is, and leaps out of the shadows to attack the soft, squishy caster who is waving a wand around?

Swinging at the wand isn't a bad idea. It could be a wand of nasty death. Depends on the level of intelligence of the critter in question. Creatures with darkvision should go out of their way to sunder a sunrod, for the advantage, and casters holding wands may well be dangerous. Casters mumbling words, waving a wand, and concentrating? Seems like a pretty reasonable target.

I don't tend to smash my players' gear, despite my urges. I can be strong.

[Myrmex]

No, of course it's overkill to go out of your way sundering belted wands.

But if a character is using a wand repeatedly it is much more likely to be in hand. If the attacker is not a caster, and has no idea what it is, and leaps out of the shadows to attack the soft, squishy caster who is waving a wand around?

Swinging at the wand isn't a bad idea. It could be a wand of nasty death. Depends on the level of intelligence of the critter in question. Creatures with darkvision should go out of their way to sunder a sunrod, for the advantage, and casters holding wands may well be dangerous. Casters mumbling words, waving a wand, and concentrating? Seems like a pretty reasonable target.

Absolutely agree with you there. 'Course, at low levels, the wand will have about as many HP as the caster. :smallwink:

You can use players' tendency to search for auras everywhere against them, as it takes time. Have trick rooms where they find an aura and, while involved with it, get ambushed. I've done some pretty elaborate stuff where the whole part decided to crawl on hands and knees after a magic trail, only to find themselves getting swarmed with rats and the only exit sealing, or an explosive runes hidden such that only someone with detect magic can read it. 6d6 right to the caster's face? Ouch!


I don't tend to smash my players' gear, despite my urges. I can be strong.

lol
I know what you mean.

[Zeful]

I don't really understand why people are so unhappy with the sorceror thing. I've seen a lot of people who don't like the fact that you have to pick a power source, but the only real alternative would have been more choice, but more ambiguity....

I can give three reasons why Heritage Sorcerers are a Bad Idea.
1: It's unimaginative. Back when Stanzy's ultimate classes came out, the idea of a Sorcerer gaining power from their ancestors was original. Now, it just shows that the designers are too uncreative to actually think of something to make the class distinct.

2: It's pretty stupid. A 50-year-old Human Sorcerer suddenly hitting a second puberty and turning into an undead/ooze/angel? Seriously? The only way the Pathfinder Sorcerer makes any real sense is to limit all members of the class to 2-50 years under the racial minimum age for adventuring. No Middle-age, Old, or Venerable Sorcerers, period.

3: It has drastic implications for the setting. Most people miss this, but if heritage is the only way for Sorcerers to get power, than the setting should include a grand total of zero Wizards. Wizards gain their spells through extensive study and repetition, much like our scientific method. Which means there has to be some kind of repetitive and consistent phenomena which to study in order to the basis of magic to exist. Potential Wizards can't really study Clerics/Paladins or Druids, as their power is granted to them, and study would only show how to grant their powers to others, or how to beseech others for powers (Binder, Warlock). All that's left is the Sorcerer, who simply charms what he wants from the universe. If that power comes exclusively from the blood, then those without it should be completely unable to cast their spells. Sense most Heritage Sorcerers don't have a separate spell list from Wizards, Wizards can't logically exist.

[Typewriter]

I can give three reasons why Heritage Sorcerers are a Bad Idea.
1: It's unimaginative. Back when Stanzy's ultimate classes came out, the idea of a Sorcerer gaining power from their ancestors was original. Now, it just shows that the designers are too uncreative to actually think of something to make the class distinct.

2: It's pretty stupid. A 50-year-old Human Sorcerer suddenly hitting a second puberty and turning into an undead/ooze/angel? Seriously? The only way the Pathfinder Sorcerer makes any real sense is to limit all members of the class to 2-50 years under the racial minimum age for adventuring. No Middle-age, Old, or Venerable Sorcerers, period.

3: It has drastic implications for the setting. Most people miss this, but if heritage is the only way for Sorcerers to get power, than the setting should include a grand total of zero Wizards. Wizards gain their spells through extensive study and repetition, much like our scientific method. Which means there has to be some kind of repetitive and consistent phenomena which to study in order to the basis of magic to exist. Potential Wizards can't really study Clerics/Paladins or Druids, as their power is granted to them, and study would only show how to grant their powers to others, or how to beseech others for powers (Binder, Warlock). All that's left is the Sorcerer, who simply charms what he wants from the universe. If that power comes exclusively from the blood, then those without it should be completely unable to cast their spells. Sense most Heritage Sorcerers don't have a separate spell list from Wizards, Wizards can't logically exist.

I think 1 and 2 are pretty good points, but you kind of lost me on part 3...In the end though I think I disagree with all of them.

1. While it has been done before it is still distinct isn't it? What else has powers from blood except for monsters/dragons/etc.? What in the world is original anymore? Fighters still use swords, mages still use books, sorcerors get their powers from the blood. All of these are distinct from the rest.

2. It actually never occured to me to think of it as a puberty, though I suppose that could be one way to go about it. I always kind of it as power in your blood simply needing a catalyst to present itself. Probably just my years of watching anime seep out. The main characters always have the power all along, they just need the proper push to get it out. Is there somewhere in the pathfinder books that refers to it as being age related or anything, or do they simply say 'the power comes from the blood'.

3. You really kind of lost me on this one. I don't understand how some people getting power from blood locks out other people from getting power elsewhere. It sounds like you're implying that power can be gained ONLY from the blood, which I don't really understand where you're getting that from...Yeah, like I said I'm pretty lost by your third comment.

[AstralFire]

He's saying that by making it so there's no such thing as natural magic, and since Sorcerers use the same spell list as Wizards, how can a Wizard cast without blood in his veins? A conclusion can be drawn that they shouldn't be the same genetic stock and able to cast the exact same spells but in totally different ways. Not one I think is necessarily accurate, but I can see how he arrived at that conclusion.

Classes should be fairly broad and I think the niche of 'inner power user' is important enough to have a representative who does not require intermingling with some 'better race' in the past. Especially if you run games with different cosmologies.

[Typewriter]

He's saying that by making it so there's no such thing as natural magic, and since Sorcerers use the same spell list as Wizards, how can a Wizard cast without blood in his veins? A conclusion can be drawn that they shouldn't be the same genetic stock and able to cast the exact same spells but in totally different ways.

Classes should be fairly broad and I think the niche of 'inner power user' is important enough to have a representative who does not require intermingling with some 'better race' in the past. Especially if you run games with different cosmologies.

But doesn't the fact that they get blood from creatures that used to exist mean that natural magic does exist and that this is simply the way it appears in the sorcerors themselves?

Plus all having that blood do is make the knowledge of how to cast come naturally to the sorceror. He still has to do all the verbal/somatic/material/etc. etc. It's just that instead of studying how to do it like a wizard does it comes naturally.

And besides theres always the arcane bloodline that says almost the exact same thing. Magic runs in the family, and "while most of your relatives were accomplished wizards, your powers developed without the need for study and practice."

[Gnaeus]

Pathfinder sorcerer doesn't require mingling with a different race in your ancestry. Other spelled out options include:
Your birth was in some way auspicious, like during an eclipse (destined)
You or relatives were exposed to a powerful elemental force (elemental)
You were born dead and brought back to life (undead)

Most of the others are adaptable with 30 seconds of flavor text, like "he was abducted by fey as a child" or "he lived near the dump where the wizards guild threw their trash", or "he made a pact with an outsider". If you don't like their interpretation, it really requires next to no effort to modify that flavor text.

[Rixx]

Classes should be fairly broad and I think the niche of 'inner power user' is important enough to have a representative who does not require intermingling with some 'better race' in the past. Especially if you run games with different cosmologies.

As far as I know, a good portion of the Sorcerer "bloodlines" don't actually require specific heritage (Destined, Arcane, and Undead come to mind).

[satorian]

Zeful, we are of course both entitled to our opinions, but I fail to see any of your points.

1. Bloodlines are not restrictive. There a bunch of them out there, each lending something unique to the oh so mechanically vanilla sorceror. In 3.5 when I play a sorceror, I always take heritage feats, weak though they are, to give a mechanical fleshout to the flavor of my guy. Now I don't have to. Want more bloodlines? Shamanic, ancestor, modron, whatever: make it yourself on the template they gave you. There are a bunch already, but it's not too hard to make more.
2. It's not puberty. Through experience AS A SORCEROR you are unleashing the power of your heritage. Just getting older and not becoming a stronger sorceror does nothing for you. Your understanding of it just confuses me.
3. What? Most people miss it because what you said doesn't make any sense. Some people learn to manipulate the forces of nature through study. Some, because of the supernatural blood, have the potential to do it naturally, but must practice to get good at it. Of course, just being part supernatural isn't enough, or every tiefling would automatically gain sorceror levels. Some, the Ultimate Magus, do both.

That said, I obviously am pretty happy with the sorceror stuff. I find the wizard changes interesting, but ultimately unnecessary. The fighter, except for the power attack debacle, is a step in the right direction, as is the monk and barbarian. Some of the barb's powers are a little weird, but whatever. I hate hate hate the bard change that limits the song so much, and hate hate hate the changes to polymorph. Poly needed a fix, of course, but this one is just flavorless and doesn't resemble the stories that are the reason why polymorph is in the game in the first place. I like the races. I like the removal of XP costs, though spending mountains of coins to cast spells as a drawback is just as weird to me. Especially for a sorceror. The change to wish is just arbitrary and odd. CMB, as another poster mentioned, is actually more complicated than the old system and fixes pretty much nothing. It's about as necessary as returning to THAC0.

I was once very excited about Pathfinder. At this point, I'd probably just steal some of Paizo's ideas from the upcoming online SRD. Much as I like some of the changes, there are some, like polymorph, that are just dealbreakers for me. Also, if I only steal a few of the best ideas, my game will still be 3.5 compatible.

[Zeful]

3. You really kind of lost me on this one. I don't understand how some people getting power from blood locks out other people from getting power elsewhere. It sounds like you're implying that power can be gained ONLY from the blood, which I don't really understand where you're getting that from...Yeah, like I said I'm pretty lost by your third comment.

I'm saying that Sorcerers came first in the prehistory of the setting. Sorcerers get magic powers. Wizards study those powers, and copy them. It's why the spell lists are the same (in setting). By making the reason Sorcerers can cast spells being some random gene they got from Monstrous great-grandparent, it removes the only in setting reason for the Wizard class to exist. Studying the heritage Sorcerer's power wouldn't show how to bend reality to one's whim. It would show that his genes give him the power to bend reality to his whim, which would be impossible to reproduce. As long as the Spell lists are functionally identical, Sorcerer's powers can't be from genetics. It would be like trying to reverse engineer a spaceship that ran on a chemical element not found anywhere in known space.

[AstralFire]

Most of the others are adaptable with 30 seconds of flavor text, like "he was abducted by fey as a child" or "he lived near the dump where the wizards guild threw their trash", or "he made a pact with an outsider". If you don't like their interpretation, it really requires next to no effort to modify that flavor text.

It doesn't. But people get this hang up on what they see, what labels they've attached to things, and then I find it difficult to get people to rethink of these things. The less of these unnecessary labels and jargon are thrown on to something that is a 'core' for a semi-generic, the better. In my experience as a homebrewer and a DM, it is much easier to show someone a blank slate of abilities that mechanically facilitate a set of concepts and say "okay, this is because of your genes" than it is to show someone powers that say they're from your genes and get them to instead think of it as from your sheer level of awesome.

EDIT: To elaborate further, I once had a player who got really stuck on the idea of Sorcerer bloodlines after first seeing them in Dragon. I was running a world that lacked celestials, dragons, etc as well as most racial interbreeding (earlier version of Tareea, click my sig.) When I tried to inform him that he could simply be a Sorcerer - had to simply be a sorcerer - without planar intervention, I think his brain broke 500 RPM.

[Typewriter]

I'm saying that Sorcerers came first in the prehistory of the setting. Sorcerers get magic powers. Wizards study those powers, and copy them. It's why the spell lists are the same (in setting). By making the reason Sorcerers can cast spells being some random gene they got from Monstrous great-grandparent, it removes the only in setting reason for the Wizard class to exist. Studying the heritage Sorcerer's power wouldn't show how to bend reality to one's whim. It would show that his genes give him the power to bend reality to his whim, which would be impossible to reproduce. As long as the Spell lists are functionally identical, Sorcerer's powers can't be from genetics. It would be like trying to reverse engineer a spaceship that ran on a chemical element not found anywhere in known space.

I had never heard of sorcerors coming first(not disputing, just saying I'm unfamiliar with that), but even still I'd say that's not quite right.

A sorceror doesn't need to study or learn in order to know how to cast spells. Casting spells is still waving arms, burning bat poop, and saying specific words. Why cant a wizard watch a sorceror do that, study it, and learn it? If wizards could somehow copy the bloodline powers that sorcerors get that would be pretty lame, but that isn't the way it is.

And once a wizard learned the basics of casting spells he'd simply experiment to discover new combinations of arm waving, gibbering, and burning stuff to discover new spells.

I understand your argument a little bit better, but it sounds like you're making up fluff that contradicts the way the system works. It doesn't say that magic HAS to come from the blood, just that for sorcerors - it can.

[Gnaeus]

So, the sorcerer that the wizards copied was a destiny sorcerer, or one of the other types. Really, hand wave it away. Lots of people like it, and it makes sense to them. If it doesn't make sense to you, only use the heritages you like, or make your own.

[satorian]

Zeful, I think it's more like a real life shaman who witnesses a chemical reaction (you know, like oxidation). He studies it. His studnets study it. Over time, the students of his student et al discover chemistry. Likewise, the early wizards figured out ways to duplicate sorceror (and dragon and various other creatures) powers first. But the wizard doesn't just use these powers. He studies them. He develops new spells. Over time, the sorceror sees this, and he learns to channel his power in ways that mimic the wizrds new discovered powers. Otherwise Bigby spells wouldn't be on the sorceror list. Metagame, the two are just different ways of doing magic for players who prefer one thing or another. In game, they are sister studies, that, while similar in effect, come from very different place. I don't see the problem. Also, it would seem you have the same problem with a 3.5 sorceror as a pathfinder one. 3.5 implies the bloodlines, too. pathfinder just makes it mechanical.

[AstralFire]

Also, it would seem you have the same problem with a 3.5 sorceror as a pathfinder one. 3.5 implies the bloodlines, too. pathfinder just makes it mechanical.

I can't speak for Zeful, but I got increasingly irritated with the Sorcerer as WotC kept pushing it down that path. At this point, I no longer allow the class except by request since it doesn't make any sense to me in any regard (casting trademark spells off the Wizard list, born of draconic meddling... I let PCs take it, but no NPCs take the class in anything I run) and just use the Wilder and Psion instead.

I haven't been speaking to the Pathfinder sorcerer, either; I was responding more generally to Typewriter's question about why people don't like bloodlines.

[Typewriter]

And I would agree completely if something really kind of forced you down a path.

The mindset in 3.5 for any DMs I was under was that if I was a sorceror I had dragons in my blood. I never played sorcerors. When I DMed 3.5 I would allow people to take whatever they wanted, but if someone wanted to play a sorceror without that flavor I would always allow it.

If the pathfinder sorceror didn't have so many different options, some of which imply power coming from destiny/magic itself/etc. I wouldn't like it either.

That being said I wouldn't allow any reflavoring in pathfinder. If someone wants the draconic bloodline powers, but didn't want that flavor I'd say tough. That flavor comes with those powers, if you don't want that flavor then take arcane/destined.

[Zeful]

I had never heard of sorcerors coming first(not disputing, just saying I'm unfamiliar with that), but even still I'd say that's not quite right.No setting actually explains how classes came about, but with the similarities between the spell lists and that Wizards are analogous to scientists, it's not a hard jump to make.


A sorceror doesn't need to study or learn in order to know how to cast spells. Casting spells is still waving arms, burning bat poop, and saying specific words. Why cant a wizard watch a sorceror do that, study it, and learn it? If wizards could somehow copy the bloodline powers that sorcerors get that would be pretty lame, but that isn't the way it is.Except with the way Heritage Sorcerers are written, casting spells is a bloodline power. The only reason that waving his arms, burning bat poop and gibbering works for the heritage sorcerer is because of a gene that he has from a monster that intermingled with the family. Without that gene, no amount of dancing, burning poop, and gibbering would do anything. Because of that, there's no reason to expect the Wizard to be able to do it.


I understand your argument a little bit better, but it sounds like you're making up fluff that contradicts the way the system works. It doesn't say that magic HAS to come from the blood, just that for sorcerors - it can.I'm making up fluff, yes. But it's trying to explain how the system works. Heritage Sorcerers would make sense if they were the only arcane caster, or had their own spell list. But with Wizards sharing the spell list, Heritage Sorcerers just don't make sense.


If it doesn't make sense to you, only use the heritages you like, or make your own.I don't like, nor have I ever, liked Heritage.


Also, it would seem you have the same problem with a 3.5 sorceror as a pathfinder one. 3.5 implies the bloodlines, too. pathfinder just makes it mechanical.
Nice try, but the 3.5 sorcerer uses language that implies that Bloodlines were what the frightened norms used to demonize Sorcerers and they just went "Sure, why not? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlekzrxgx4f)" There's no actual basis to the claims in 3.5.

[Gnaeus]

For another way to think about it, how many fantasy sources make the good wizard's power part of an inherited bloodline? Merlin in many myths would have a demonic bloodline. Belgarion would be a celestial bloodline. Even the Tolkein wizards (being essentially demigods) would make more sense as celestial bloodlines than as "wizards" in the d20 sense, as some aren't particularly bookish. Thats what 3.5 and its children should be doing. Give options to emulate major fantasy worlds, and let DMs cut out the part that doesn't agree with their world's cosmology.

[Typewriter]

No setting actually explains how classes came about, but with the similarities between the spell lists and that Wizards are analogous to scientists, it's not a hard jump to make.

Except with the way Heritage Sorcerers are written, casting spells is a bloodline power. The only reason that waving his arms, burning bat poop and gibbering works for the heritage sorcerer is because of a gene that he has from a monster that intermingled with the family. Without that gene, no amount of dancing, burning poop, and gibbering would do anything. Because of that, there's no reason to expect the Wizard to be able to do it.

I'm making up fluff, yes. But it's trying to explain how the system works. Heritage Sorcerers would make sense if they were the only arcane caster, or had their own spell list. But with Wizards sharing the spell list, Heritage Sorcerers just don't make sense.


I do see your point, it's just that I imagine the fluff differently(and since theres nothing set in stone that's kind of what we have to do).

I see it as the sorcerors simply knowing how to do those things because of their blood. The knowledge of HOW to cast spells comes to them by sheer force of will because of the power of their bloodline. You're right in saying that without the blood it wouldn't do anything for them, but then again without the blood they wouldn't be a sorceror, so unless they're a wizard who has studied how magic works they'd be in the same boat as anyone else...

But the other thing I'd say is that if you come up with fluff to try and explain something, and then you don't like your own fluff...that's kind of defeating your own argument.

It would be like if I claimed that wizards are all lame because they wear glasses. Of course they wear glasses, they spend all their life studying in poorly lit dungeons, how would they not need glasses? Sure I have some reasoning, but nobody is forcing me to come to that conclusion but myself.

[AstralFire]

For another way to think about it, how many fantasy sources make the good wizard's power part of an inherited bloodline? Merlin in many myths would have a demonic bloodline. Belgarion would be a celestial bloodline. Even the Tolkein wizards (being essentially demigods) would make more sense as celestial bloodlines than as "wizards" in the d20 sense, as some aren't particularly bookish. Thats what 3.5 and its children should be doing. Give options to emulate major fantasy worlds, and let DMs cut out the part that doesn't agree with their world's cosmology.

In general, I think it's better system design for anything reaching to be generic, to come up with a flexible and adaptable core with little cosmological assumption and then make supplements that add in mechanics sufficiently. See: Vancian casting. Works with: Well, it doesn't match old school fantasy and it doesn't match the new school stuff...

[Gnaeus]

In general, I think it's better system design for anything reaching to be generic, to come up with a flexible and adaptable core with little cosmological assumption and then make supplements that add in mechanics sufficiently. See: Vancian casting. Works with: Well, it doesn't match old school fantasy and it doesn't match the new school stuff...

Thats fair, but the arcane heritage can easily serve as that "generic sorcerer". Would it have been better if they just included arcane heritage, then dropped all the alternate heritages in different splatbooks as alternate class features? I think they were right to put a dozen options in core, so that when people decide to write their own heritages, they have a lot of examples to try to balance them against.

[AstralFire]

Thats fair, but the arcane heritage can easily serve as that "generic sorcerer". Would it have been better if they just included arcane heritage, then dropped all the alternate heritages in different splatbooks as alternate class features? I think they were right to put a dozen options in core, so that when people decide to write their own heritages, they have a lot of examples to try to balance them against.


I haven't been speaking to the Pathfinder sorcerer, either; I was responding more generally to Typewriter's question about why people don't like bloodlines.

I read the Pathfinder threads because I like to talk and I like to read. I'm no more interested in the system itself than I am in Vampire the Masquerade, so I just respond to specific points that are relevant to me. I don't know what most of the specific abilities entail, and my railing is more against the concept of a 'bloodline' in general. Paizo seems to be using them more like power sources, so if so, all the better. -shrug-

[LibraryOgre]

I'm saying that Sorcerers came first in the prehistory of the setting. Sorcerers get magic powers. Wizards study those powers, and copy them. It's why the spell lists are the same (in setting). By making the reason Sorcerers can cast spells being some random gene they got from Monstrous great-grandparent, it removes the only in setting reason for the Wizard class to exist. Studying the heritage Sorcerer's power wouldn't show how to bend reality to one's whim. It would show that his genes give him the power to bend reality to his whim, which would be impossible to reproduce. As long as the Spell lists are functionally identical, Sorcerer's powers can't be from genetics. It would be like trying to reverse engineer a spaceship that ran on a chemical element not found anywhere in known space.

Your conclusions are faulty.

First of all, you assume that only blood can result in sorcerers. This is patently false, as others have given a variety of reasons why your sorcerer may have different "bloodlines".

Secondly, it is obvious that experience plays as much role in a sorcerer gaining power as genes... after all, my 19th level barbarian can take 1 level in sorcerer if he likes, even though he's now 90 years old. He'll undergo changes... but they won't be as severe as those undergone by the 19th level sorcerer over the course of his career.

Third, you assume that studying a heritage sorcerer's powers would teach nothing to a wizard. Is that based on the well-known fact that we have learned nothing about the natural world from studying how animals make use of their natural abilities, or the certainty that two different people, enacting the same effects through different bloodlines, would have no similarities in how they approached things? Who says the first wizards were not likewise sorcerers, seeking to overcome some of the limits of sorcery... people who already knew something of magic, and expanded their repretoire through careful study? Birthright carries an example of just such... all full wizards must have elven or divine blood, but magicians can use low-level spells and high level illusions and divinations without anything but mud in their veins.

[satorian]

Exactly what I was saying, Mark.

Also, you all might want to use this as a reference for further PF discussions.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

[LibraryOgre]

Exactly what I was saying, Mark.

Also, you all might want to use this as a reference for further PF discussions.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Dear Satorian:

I love you. We have a PF game this evening, and I'm sending this link to my DM.

Hugs and kisses,
Mark

[VirOath]

Really want to mess with people's heads for using Detect Magic at will?

Have the walls, ceiling and floor of a room be illusions. Covering walls, ceiling and floor that look just like the illusions, only hiding the dirt.

Do this for a few rooms, you don't even need any traps.

[Belobog]

The major thing I disagree with concerning the Sorceror is that stuff like 'bloodlines' and 'heritage' is even a part of the class. To me, something like that is derived from the character themselves, a part of their concept in a way class doesn't define. If you have a celestial ancestor in your family history, the benefits of that heritage should be available to you, whether you're a part of a certain class or not; a class defines a part of your character that comes through with experience, while something like birth or bloodline is something that character simply is. Though 3.5 implied that sorcerors derived power from a lineage, it by no means enforced it, and it feels wrong to see PF pushing the idea to the extent that they have.

Other problems are unnecessary changes (The Fighter doesn't need the new features he has now, most of the feats that were changed weren't a major problem to begin with), or the ideas that are decent have been done (consolidating skills).

Nevermind.

[Typewriter]

The major thing I disagree with concerning the Sorceror is that stuff like 'bloodlines' and 'heritage' is even a part of the class. To me, something like that is derived from the character themselves, a part of their concept in a way class doesn't define. If you have a celestial ancestor in your family history, the benefits of that heritage should be available to you, whether you're a part of a certain class or not; a class defines a part of your character that comes through with experience, while something like birth or bloodline is something that character simply is. Though 3.5 implied that sorcerors derived power from a lineage, it by no means enforced it, and it feels wrong to see PF pushing the idea to the extent that they have.


But once again, I would say to simply take what the book refers to as the default - 'Arcane'. Your family tends to have an affinity for magic. That's it. That's what you get if the blood isn't tainted by demons/devils/angels/etc. That's the generic sorceror. But rather than just have that one option they provide options for other things.

It's not forced, it's an option. You get: Generic class features from arcane OR blood powers flavored towards specific things.

[HamHam]

Sorcerers can use magic without study because they have the blood of creatures that use magic instinctievly and without study. Dragons can take levels in wizard, but they also just get spell casting for being a dragon.

[Belobog]

But once again, I would say to simply take what the book refers to as the default - 'Arcane'. Your family tends to have an affinity for magic. That's it. That's what you get if the blood isn't tainted by demons/devils/angels/etc. That's the generic sorceror. But rather than just have that one option they provide options for other things.

It's not forced, it's an option. You get: Generic class features from arcane OR blood powers flavored towards specific things.

To me, this has the same problem as the other bloodlines. Instead of 'great granddad was an angel', it just substitutes in 'great grandad was magically irradiated a few too many times'. Still not something I think should be dealt as a class feature.

[Typewriter]

Sorcerers can use magic without study because they have the blood of creatures that use magic instinctievly and without study. Dragons can take levels in wizard, but they also just get spell casting for being a dragon.

I don't really understand that...it kind of contradicts the examples of "Arcane" and "Destined" the book provides, which are "Family skilled in magic" and "Family destined for greatness/prophesized birth".

[Zeful]

Sorcerers can use magic without study because they have the blood of creatures that use magic instinctievly and without study. Dragons can take levels in wizard, but they also just get spell casting for being a dragon.

In Pathfinder? Yes. In 3.0, 3.5, 4.0? Only if you want it.

And the main reason I will never like heritage is, simply. I like mystery. Explaining where your powers came from is for Wizards, Sorcerers just are.

[Typewriter]

To me, this has the same problem as the other bloodlines. Instead of 'great granddad was an angel', it just substitutes in 'great grandad was magically irradiated a few too many times'. Still not something I think should be dealt as a class feature.

Like I said earlier everyone kind of has to add their own fluff to things to make it work how they want.

I suppose that if a player didn't want their ancestor to have made a deal with a devil, didn't want any ancestors to be connected with dragons, didn't want his birth prophesized, etc. etc. I would allow them to not have any of the bloodlines.

My personal opinion is that this makes sense. Power comes from somewhere. Monks meditate and train, fighters train, wizards study, druids hang out in the woods. Complaining about wanting power to come from within, but refusing every possible source and just existing as a quirk in the universe that has power for no reason is kind of silly. Honestly, with the wording on ones like arcane and destined you could literally be just a magical accidental blip of existence - which is what you must want if the bloodlines bother you so much.

[Typewriter]

In Pathfinder? Yes. In 3.0, 3.5, 4.0? Only if you want it.

And the main reason I will never like heritage is, simply. I like mystery. Explaining where your powers came from is for Wizards, Sorcerers just are.

Just are what? 'Destined' to be powerful? Because they have something for that...and it's left with mystery as to why you have those powers, other than you were 'destined' to.

If you don't like the bloodlines you don't have to, but it just seems to me like people are discounting it outright without looking at the list and realizing that there are ones that fit the sorceror flavor they like. They actually gave a class all these options, including mysterious and vague ones like 'arcane' and 'destined' and people keep complaining about being shoehorned into having good ol' uncle fire breath when that really isn't the case at all.

EDIT:
And now that I'm home from work I have an exact line from 'Destined':

Regardless of your bloodline’s origin, you have a great future ahead of you.

Translation: Your parents could be dirt farmers from the kingdom of mud, when suddenly you popped out covered in filth but full of magical competence no one in your family has ever seen. Sure it says that you have a great future ahead of you but it's not like that line means anything. You could still wind up face down in a ditch bleeding from your empty eye sockets midway through the first session.

[Rixx]

...good ol' uncle fire breath...

I love this. I'm using this expression as often as possible from now on.

[LibraryOgre]

In Pathfinder? Yes. In 3.0, 3.5, 4.0? Only if you want it.

And the main reason I will never like heritage is, simply. I like mystery. Explaining where your powers came from is for Wizards, Sorcerers just are.

Who says you know where your power comes from? Just because the player knows doesn't mean the character does.

[Typewriter]

I love this. I'm using this expression as often as possible from now on.

Typewriter is here for the people, glad to have been of service.

[Nero24200]

Who says you know where your power comes from? Just because the player knows doesn't mean the character does.

It becomes pretty obvious when you start sprouting dragon wings in your sleep.

I agree with Zeful, I hated the idea ever since I saw it. I also began thinking of reasons why I normally play sorcerers over wizards...how about because I wanted to play somthing spontainious rather than deal with all the book keeping that comes with the wizard? Theres so many other ways the sorcerer could have been more interesting/powerful, but no, they went for the standard, generic route that every homebrewer and their dog goes for.

[Rixx]

I guess every homebrewer and their dog can't be wrong?

The cool thing about tabletop games is that you don't have to incorporate stuff you don't like. I don't see why there's so much argument about these things when they're so easy to leave out or change to suit different playstyles. I don't see rulebooks as a big, solid set of concrete rules, but more like a big ol' recipe. You can just put in and leave stuff out to suit your group's tastes.

You don't like Sorcerer bloodlines. That's okay! I respect that. I like Sorcerer bloodlines. The cool part is is that my liking them and your not liking them will never hinder either of our ability to enjoy the game. (Unless we play together, but compromise is the name of the game in any group.)

[Typewriter]

It becomes pretty obvious when you start sprouting dragon wings in your sleep.

I agree with Zeful, I hated the idea ever since I saw it. I also began thinking of reasons why I normally play sorcerers over wizards...how about because I wanted to play somthing spontainious rather than deal with all the book keeping that comes with the wizard? Theres so many other ways the sorcerer could have been more interesting/powerful, but no, they went for the standard, generic route that every homebrewer and their dog goes for.

I still don't really get it when you could still have just taken arcane or destined, but as Rixx put it, " my liking them and your not liking them will never hinder either of our ability to enjoy the game".

Considering that this is supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5 people will be allowed to play the generic 3.5 sorceror :smallwink:

[Devils_Advocate]

Except with the way Heritage Sorcerers are written, casting spells is a bloodline power. The only reason that waving his arms, burning bat poop and gibbering works for the heritage sorcerer is because of a gene that he has from a monster that intermingled with the family. Without that gene, no amount of dancing, burning poop, and gibbering would do anything. Because of that, there's no reason to expect the Wizard to be able to do it.
That strikes me as like saying "Flight is a hereditary ability of birds, so human beings can never fly." Which is, as we know, wrong. Just because we aren't born with wings of our own doesn't mean that we can't build some.

Spell preparation is the wizard's "wings". Spell preparation is what allows wizards to do what sorcerers can do as a natural gift. And... that's how things already were in 3.5. Wizards prepare spells, sorcerers have an innate magical gift that allows them to cast spells without preparing them. Specifying that the sorcerer's power is hereditary -- which people have repeatedly noted that Pathfinder doesn't -- changes things... like, not at all.

It seems like you've been assuming that wizards have to cast spells exactly the same way that sorcerers do, which goes against the fluff and the mechanics that both classes have in 3.5, and basically goes against them even being two different classes. Someone who does exactly what a sorcerer does in exactly the same way a sorcerer does it is another sorcerer, not a wizard. Like... obviously. It's really hard for me to understand where you're coming from, because what you're saying just doesn't make sense to me.

[Abstruse]

There's so many other ways the sorcerer could have been more interesting/powerful, but no...

Which begs the somewhat tangential question: what would you have done with the class to make it more interesting? I'd argue that the changes (additional attack forms, additional bonus feats at 7th/13th/19th, bonus spells at 3rd and every odd level thereafter, etc.) certainly made it more powerful than the generic by-the-book 3.5 sorcerer.

[levi]

I just discovered pathfinder and haven't read the rules yet, but I figured I'd drop in on the sorcerer bloodline debate. I think the big objection to bloodlines being made into a mechanical requirement, rather than a roleplaying option is pretty simple. It constrains character concept for mechanical gains, at least using the RAW.

For instance, I'm sure the bloodlines offer a lot of options for a sorcerer player, but those options come with strings. I assume "arcane" and "destined" bloodlines are pretty generic. Perhaps the player want something more unique, but dosn't want the baggage.

There's a way around this however. Whenever some nut starts tying thier fluff so tightly to their crunch that it interfears with my fluff, I just throw it out. I once played a paladin (small P) who was Chaotic Good and a single classed Warlock. I took the mechanics and added my own fluff. I even renamed my invocations and rewrote thier descriptions. The DM was fine with it and she was great fun to play.

I don't know how generic the mechanics of the bloodlines are under the fluff, but something like this could be workable. Then again, some things just can't really be changed. An actual mechanical Type change to Dragon or something like that is hard to rewrite as anything other than somehow dragon related. On the other tentacle, wings, claws, and a breath weapon? Sure sounds pretty dragony, but it doesn't have to be. The wings could be some kind of magic sparkling energy. The claws could be more like Wolverine's. The breath weapon wouldn't even really have to be breath, they're basically just area energy attacks.

As for the relationship between sorcery and wizardry, well my setting actually has an in game explanation for that one, of sorts. Sorcerers just do magic, there's no bloodlines or any of that. They just do it, the same way Fighters break skulls, and Rouges pick pockets. When the smallfolk learned to write, they combined this new arcane art with magic to invent the scroll. Over time, the same principles developed into the spellbook and wizardry was invented. Wizards are a relatively new phenomenon, having only been around for a generation or so.

I'm downloading the pathfinder beta now and will be sure to write back with my impressions soon, but from the sound of things so far, they didn't go the direction I would have with it.

[Yora]

Seems like the first people got their hands on the final print. Guess we can expect some basic reviews in the next few days.

[Epinephrine]

I'm downloading the pathfinder beta now and will be sure to write back with my impressions soon, but from the sound of things so far, they didn't go the direction I would have with it.

Keep in mind, things have changed from the beta. The Paizo blog has provided some peeks at more final rules.

[Hurlbut]

Keep in mind, things have changed from the beta. The Paizo blog has provided some peeks at more final rules.
The Pathfinder SRD seems to be up to date with the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

[thegurullamen]

The Pathfinder SRD seems to be up to date with the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

How can you know? It's not out yet and the SRD is constantly updating. And I think most of that is just catching up with the Beta.

[Hurlbut]

How can you know? It's not out yet and the SRD is constantly updating. And I think most of that is just catching up with the Beta.Because the races and the classes are in line with the previews we have seen so far, even though we only have seen the dwarf in the preview #1.

[Yora]

Reactions to the core rules are mixed (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/readingTheCoreRulesPostObservationsHERE).

[Matthew]

Reactions to the core rules are mixed (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/readingTheCoreRulesPostObservationsHERE).

Any chance of a summary?

[Navigator]

So, now that we have the final rules here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), I'm going to bump this.

Furthermore, since the last 3 pages have been about Sorceror fluff, I'm going to propose that:

The new Fighter is garbage. It solves none of the problems Fighters have. They're still in the same boat when trying to circumvent crowd control, their saves still suck, and they're still doing nothing but "5 ft. step and full attack".
The Power Attack nerf is unacceptable. Melee classes need all the help they can get, and Power Attack used to be a bone thrown to them. Now it's hardly better than Toughness.

[Fitz]

to be honest when i first read power attack, i thought base attack had been replaced by strength as the modifier limit(making it a better low level feat). Also thought cleave was standard action rather than full. Might keep those as houserules in our games.
I like a lot of the ideas but will give the game a good run before judgeing. The fluff looks interesting to me, but our group tend to shoehorn the crunch into whatever background we feel like. No need for every paladin to play exactly the same ;-)
Fitz

[subject42]

I've tried playing a sorcerer and a monk now with Pathfinder.

The sorcerer bloodline changes are nice, provided that your DM isn't so much of a rules-stickler that he won't let you reflavor the bloodlines a bit. It's nice to be able to view the sorcerer as something other than "a wizard with less spells and less skill points". I played using the aberrant bloodline. If you have enough touch spells on your list you can really make some good use of the aberrant reach ability and the enlarge person bonus spell.

The monk still suffers from MAD, but it seems to be "the combat maneuver class" now, rather than "the roll a lot of dice and miss six times a round" class. I spent almost every combat grappling, disarming, or tripping someone. It would have been nice if they had gone even farther in that direction, since flurry of blows still suffers all of its old problems. On the bright side, he does get a mini-monk's belt as a class feature.

Outside of power attack and cleave, it doesn't feel any worse than 3.5 and some things are certainly nicer.

[Epinephrine]

So, now that we have the final rules here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), I'm going to bump this.

Furthermore, since the last 3 pages have been about Sorceror fluff, I'm going to propose that:

The new Fighter is garbage. It solves none of the problems Fighters have. They're still in the same boat when trying to circumvent crowd control, their saves still suck, and they're still doing nothing but "5 ft. step and full attack".
The Power Attack nerf is unacceptable. Melee classes need all the help they can get, and Power Attack used to be a bone thrown to them. Now it's hardly better than Toughness.


I'll disagree about the fighter - fighters are all about feats, and they've added a lot of neat new feats. With new feats like Step Up, Strike Back, Disruptive, Shatter Defenses, Nimble Moves, Acrobatic Step...not to mention the whole new shield line, for sword+board TWF. The fighter has many more options than he used to have. Additionally, making it tougher to cast defensively gives the fighter even more reason to get in there and harrass enemy spellcasters. And that's without getting into the whole critical hit line of feats.

Power Attack? I like it better now - you get a better payoff, for one thing. You get to sacrifice 1+BAB/4 from your attack roll, and you get triple that as a damage bonus with a two-handed weapon. So for the -4 a 12th level fighter takes, he gets +12 per swing. A 20th level fighter takes a -6 to hit and gets+18. That's actually good for delivering a lot of damage, since your penalty is small you can be much more likely to connect with your iteratives.

Now, I have my complaints - they've hosed bard song, and the line of critical hit feats just makes 18-20 weapons the main choice. With Devastating Chop removed there's nothing to reward x3 and x4 weapons. I'm trying to come up with ways to make x3 and x4 weapons a valid alternative to the 18-20 or 19-20 crit weapons - possibly nerfing the DC for critical feats when used with weapons with a x2 multiplier, and boosting it for x4 multiplier. Or changing Vital Strike to add the base damage times the multipler. Or something.

[Navigator]

I'm not saying the Fighter isn't better, I'm saying that he still has all the same problems. Adding bells and whistles doesn't really do anything. They fall into the same trap as 3.5, where you're forced to spend feats in order to make your already existing feats scale with growth.


A 20th level fighter takes a -6 to hit and gets+18.
Yeah, this is exactly my point. A 20th level Fighter can't take -6 to hit. They can't take -4 to hit. They must take -5 to hit if they use the feat. This actively prevents AC from functioning as it should, because you cannot deal heavy damage to low AC targets.

Otherwise, I like a good amount of changes they make, and was wondering if they made the Monk more effective... it seems like the answer is sort of, but not enough. Other than Fighter and Wizard (and possibly Bard), I think they did well with the other classes. I like the race changes (except for favored classes, but that is easily house-ruled out), skill changes, and some spell nerfs.

[Nero24200]

The cool thing about tabletop games is that you don't have to incorporate stuff you don't like. Therin lies the problem. Unforuntately for me, my group is "Upgrading" (I use the term loosely" to Pathfinder. Whenever I point out somthing I dislike, rather than actually use their head, they simply quote the arguments the paizo team used on their forums. Saying it's somthing I can keep out isn't true.

In fact, this was somthing I mentioned alot on the forums. I've seen countless games where Core material isn't banned, despite most of the most broken things in 3.5 being core. Simply by being core, players will expect to use it. Just like I might have problems getting clerics out of my standard games, I'm going to have the same amount of problems getting rid of heritages (and the countless other things I don't like about Paizo).

What's more is just how they went about it. As I said, they went down the boring route and just gave the sorcerer heritage powers. Why not actually do somthing interesting? Theres plenty of things they could have done that would've made the sorcerer better without the heritage stuff.


Which begs the somewhat tangential question: what would you have done with the class to make it more interesting? Well..somthing like this, give the sorcerer a number of points and an ability list to choose from (similer to their barbarian rage powers). Use the points to fuel the abilities, and make the abilities do things like apply metamagic feats with no drawbacks (such as increasing the spell level or casting time). I already used somthing like this for a shadowcaster fix and it works out better.

Another one? Alright, how about some sort of ability similer to the Wild Surge ability that Wilders get? Always struck me as a "Raw magic power" ability.

There, without even really thinking about it I thought of 2 ways. Neither force the sorcerer into something I feel is silly, and both fit the archtypical fantasy sorcerer ideal (I.E a mage with plenty of raw magical power).

Also quite frankly I don't think they actually thought out the bloodlines. For something they claim should be compatable with non-core material, they seem to forget things like Abberation heritiges resulting in psionic abilities, not arcane.

What's more, actually have a close look at most of the bloodlines, they're surprisngly similer with a few minor varitions. It's usally a natual attack or ranged energy-based attack and the low levels, then some resistances and immunites with more levels.

[GoatToucher]

The fact of the matter is that alot of the problems people have with the changes are a YMMV issue. There is nothing bad or wrong about bloodline powers. Some simply do not like it. You are perfectly entitled not to like it, but you can't say that liver and onions or broccoli are bad just because you don't like them. If there is a system issue, bring it up, but all I keep hearing is variations on the theme "I don't like this."

The old rule of "If you don't like it, you can always exclude it." holds. If you have trouble with limiting your players, that, again, is not a fault in the Pathfinder systems.

I had no problem with the old Power Attack rules. I used them, but my no means considered the feat essential to the effectiveness of any melee class character. The new rule is interesting. You are limited to how much you can give up, but the benefit is increased substantially. It does not say that you can or cannot, but I personally would have no problem with a character taking less of a penalty than he could for less of a reward (i.e. a 20th level fighter could go -1/+2, or -2/+4 if he wanted to). There is a maximum now, but a two handed weapon guy could get a little bit ridiculous with the damage boost (and don't get me started on the cheesey-assed Shock Trooper feat... oy.)

[Typewriter]

Well..somthing like this, give the sorcerer a number of points and an ability list to choose from (similer to their barbarian rage powers). Use the points to fuel the abilities, and make the abilities do things like apply metamagic feats with no drawbacks (such as increasing the spell level or casting time). I already used somthing like this for a shadowcaster fix and it works out better.

Another one? Alright, how about some sort of ability similer to the Wild Surge ability that Wilders get? Always struck me as a "Raw magic power" ability.

There, without even really thinking about it I thought of 2 ways. Neither force the sorcerer into something I feel is silly, and both fit the archtypical fantasy sorcerer ideal (I.E a mage with plenty of raw magical power).


But weren't you saying that they need to do something original? Sorcerors are the only thing really known for having power from the blood. Your examples of being original sound more generic than a host of options like they provide sorcerors with now.

I do agree with what someone else said though. You are entitled to not like the heritage powers if you don't want to, but if you're trying to convince people I would personally need some more reasons beyond 'I don't like it'.

Either way, I hope you and your group are able to have fun with the system even if you're not all excited about it. Good luck.

[Zeful]

The old rule of "If you don't like it, you can always exclude it." holds.

Alternative thinking includes "If you have to exclude it, the system is a failure", "If you don't like it, you're not the target audience, go away" and others.


There is nothing bad or wrong about bloodline powers.No there is not, but bloodline mechanics are better suited as prestige classes or feat intensive trees rather than a base class, where the inclusion of bloodline mechanics are the player's prerogative. There are better ways to deal with the concept of "Magic from the Blood" as a base class than bloodline mechanics.

[Nero24200]

Your examples of being original sound more generic than a host of options like they provide sorcerors with now. Yet still sound more interesting. In fact, allow the non-core heritage feats and suddenly someone can use both, mean-while it's easier to keep out of games such as mine. Just for the simple fact that the bloodlines are core means taking them out is difficult.

Think to just about any lenghy debate on any D'n'D forums. They'll be about things like Paladin codes, Clericzilla and other overpowering classes and the caster Vs martial class debate. I've never seen anyone respond by saying "Just house rule the paladin's code out" or "Don't allow spell-casters in your games". Yet when someone mentions not liking somthing like Tomb of Battle, the complaints are usally "DM won't let me play warblade/swordsage/crusader"

[GoatToucher]

Alternative thinking includes "If you have to exclude it, the system is a failure", "If you don't like it, you're not the target audience, go away" and others.

It is noteworthy that these slogans are less well known, because they are less true. No system is perfect. None, ever. Therefore we must assume that -all- games will require some houseruling, rather than the notion that all games ever made have been failures.

The "target audience" bit is fanboy apologia, as they cannot cope with somebody not liking their game and tell them to go away rather than deal with criticism. People's opinions are valuable, but not all opinions are equally valuable (e.g. "This game is flawed due to systematic problems A, B, and C." vs. "This game is flawed because I don't like it.")


No there is not, but bloodline mechanics are better suited as prestige classes or feat intensive trees rather than a base class,

An interesting proposition. Please explain.


where the inclusion of bloodline mechanics are the player's prerogative. There are better ways to deal with the concept of "Magic from the Blood" as a base class than bloodline mechanics.

Do you have any examples?

[Epinephrine]

There are better ways to deal with the concept of "Magic from the Blood" as a base class than bloodline mechanics.

The arcane bloodline could as easily be viewed as default class features. You don't get much more bland as a bloodline for a sorcerer than having some form of magical affinity as an inheritance.

[Nero24200]

Therefore we must assume that -all- games will require some houseruling But it's just that. PFRPG is essentially a collection of house-rules (Taking a set of existing rules and applying changes without altering the base core mechanics), and therfore useless if you have to houserule over them.

[GoatToucher]

Yet still sound more interesting. In fact, allow the non-core heritage feats and suddenly someone can use both, mean-while it's easier to keep out of games such as mine. Just for the simple fact that the bloodlines are core means taking them out is difficult.

Think to just about any lenghy debate on any D'n'D forums. They'll be about things like Paladin codes, Clericzilla and other overpowering classes and the caster Vs martial class debate. I've never seen anyone respond by saying "Just house rule the paladin's code out" or "Don't allow spell-casters in your games".

But you have heard "Use these non-core paladin variants." and "Just don't allow certain spells in your game."

I hate to break this to you, but 3.5 core is pretty busted too, and alot of people have houseruled the heck out of it. Your players being resistant to your edicts is not a fault in the systems you play.


Yet when someone mentions not liking somthing like Tomb of Battle, the complaints are usally "DM won't let me play warblade/swordsage/crusader"

If you have an easier time keeping out non-core, good for you. My game, other games I have played, and a lot of games described on these boards have houseruled core systems from a variety of games when necessary.


But it's just that. PFRPG is essentially a collection of house-rules (Taking a set of existing rules and applying changes without altering the base core mechanics), and therfore useless if you have to houserule over them.

A system of rules is useless if you have to houserule one part of them?

I disagree.

Your problem with Sorcerers is one of preference. the game is not flawed because you don't like part of it.

[Zeful]

An interesting proposition. Please explain.
A bloodline feat tree would be roughly 6-10 feats long with some branches devoted to specific synergistic concepts that are 1-3 feats (celestial paladin, inevitable wizard, etc.), a few feats would give bonus feats (not useable for other [Heritage/Bloodline] feats) in addition to their bonuses to represent a non-conscious deepening of powers.
Prestige Classes that focus on bloodlines (like the Dragon Disciple, only better) would use a set of mechanics similar to the Pathfinder Sorcerer.
Both would represent an active investigation/acquisition of their heritage, rather than a passive one, which tends to fit more with the flavor of the other core classes.


Do you have any examples?
Nothing concrete at the moment, no. But having a spellcaster that uses their blood (or the blood of others) to cast/empower spells is possible within the framework of the system.

[GoatToucher]

A bloodline feat tree would be roughly 6-10 feats long with some branches devoted to specific synergistic concepts that are 1-3 feats (celestial paladin, inevitable wizard, etc.), a few feats would give bonus feats (not useable for other [Heritage/Bloodline] feats) in addition to their bonuses to represent a non-conscious deepening of powers.
Prestige Classes that focus on bloodlines (like the Dragon Disciple, only better) would use a set of mechanics similar to the Pathfinder Sorcerer.
Both would represent an active investigation/acquisition of their heritage, rather than a passive one, which tends to fit more with the flavor of the other core classes.

Interesting, but I don't really see how this is inherently superior to what Pathfinder has done. I find the notion of one's heritage coming to the surface (in more and less obvious ways) as the PC harnesses more arcane power interesting as well.

And, in that, we return to the crux of the problem: Preference.

[Navigator]

Simply by being core, players will expect to use it.
Nero, while I don't necessarily agree with you about the Sorceror, I completely understand what you're trying to say, and couldn't agree more. There are things that I really like about the new Pathfinder, but there are some things that I just cannot accept. These are things that can't be easily cavaliered out with house rules, even within your own gaming group.

For you, it seems like it's the Sorceror. For me, it's Favored Classes. I can only imagine getting into a debate about how this is inherently a poor mechanic with my group, and know that I'm only hearing arguments because they want extra skill points. It's a horrible, horrible mechanic, and backfires on Pathfinder's "design goals".

Though, it's mostly pointless to argue at length, because the core Sorceror won't be changed, and the Favored Class rules won't go away no matter how hard we might try.

[Kaihaku]

The 'official' list of changes has been released, any surprises?

[Dienekes]

This is based off the http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ I didn't see any list of changes anywhere

Still looking through it but I'm annoyed they took out Barbarian rage point system. It was a far more interesting mechanic, and in making the change from points to pointless some of the abilities seem to have been nerfed to annoyingly useless.

Flurry of Blows change seems interesting.

The Half-Orc and Half-Elf getting the variable +2 bonus to something, like Humans do. On one hand, yay Half-Orcs don't seem like incompetent idiots anymore. On the other, no base class starts with a bonus to Strength, which seems odd.

[Cedrass]

Still looking through it but I'm annoyed they took out Barbarian rage point system. It was a far more interesting mechanic, and in making the change from points to pointless some of the abilities seem to have been nerfed to annoyingly useless.

Well if you think about it, they didn't really take it out. They only simplified it. Before you had a number of points, spent 2 to start a rage, and one point per round to maintain it. Each Rage Power costed a number of point to activate.

Now you have a number of rounds per day, which is to say, the same as if you had points, only it does not cost you 2 points to enter a rage. And now Rage Powers costs nothing to activate.

I personally see this as an improvement.

[Yora]

It's also often said, that barbarian is a common choice for player who just want fun in melee without having to worry to much about complex mechanics.

[Nero24200]

But you have heard "Use these non-core paladin variants." and "Just don't allow certain spells in your game." Actually, up until Paizo claimed certain spells were overpowering my group never saw any need to ban a single one. And while I've heard of using paladin varients, I've never heard of using them to replace the existing paladin and write them out of the setting.


I hate to break this to you, but 3.5 core is pretty busted too, and alot of people have houseruled the heck out of it. I'm not saying it's not. But then again, it's not me you need to convince. Quite alot of players refuse to remove core material.


Your players being resistant to your edicts is not a fault in the systems you play. Does that change the fact that the elemtents I dislike are core and therfore going to be hard to remove? Even if they were put into a splatobook it might be better (and I don't see why they don't considering that before they even released the main book they were discussing quite alot of splatbooks, including making blackguard a base class in one).



I disagree. Explain to me how a set of houserules is useful if I have to houserule over them? For others it might be useful, for me it's not, fact.


Your problem with Sorcerers is one of preference. the game is not flawed because you don't like part of it. The game is flawed in my opinion, sorcerers are just an example. How about the fact that the bloodlines don't actually fix what was wrong with the sorcerers? They still needless lag behind the wizard (and even classes that don't specialize in spells, such as the cleric and druid). I saw quite alot of people actually even saying this on their forum long into their Beta Stage. Their response was quite simply "We're not changing it" with no real reason given.

[Sinfire Titan]

Well if you think about it, they didn't really take it out. They only simplified it. Before you had a number of points, spent 2 to start a rage, and one point per round to maintain it. Each Rage Power costed a number of point to activate.

Now you have a number of rounds per day, which is to say, the same as if you had points, only it does not cost you 2 points to enter a rage. And now Rage Powers costs nothing to activate.

I personally see this as an improvement.

I'm going to disagree. 4E got the Barbarian's Rage mechanic right, and neither Pathfinder nor 3.5 had a very good take on the idea. As much as I dislike 4E, that's one of the few points I do appreciate.

Let me spell this out: A barbarian's Rage ability is measured in rounds/day. If he has a total of 20+Con mod rounds/day, this means he can rage for approximately 3 minutes before being completely spent for the day.

Does the Hulk stop working completely after 3 minutes of smashing? Is Demon-Eyes Kyo limited to a mere 10 minutes/day in combat? No. Both of those characters can use their abilities multiple times each day (IIRC, the Hulk has remained in Hulk form for weeks on end at some points, and I know for a fact that Kyo's time limit is per fight). 3.5's Barbarian could, theoretically, last the entire day (14,400 rounds) if your feats and magic items were geared to it. Pathfinder's Barbarian gets 3 minutes of *SMASH* and sucks for the rest of the day.


And that's not even counting the nerfs to the Fighter feats like Improved Trip.

[Cedrass]

Let me spell this out: A barbarian's Rage ability is measured in rounds/day. If he has a total of 20+Con mod rounds/day, this means he can rage for approximately 3 minutes before being completely spent for the day.
He does have less total rage time, but he can have a lot more control on how long is rage lasts, without spending one of it's use per day as in 3.5. That, and the Rage Powers can make him quite the killing machine, so I'm guessing having given the Barbarian more rage time would have resulted in a much too strong class (I'm saying "I guess" because I still had no chance to test the final PFRG rules).


3.5's Barbarian could, theoretically, last the entire day (14,400 rounds) if your feats and magic items were geared to it. Pathfinder's Barbarian gets 3 minutes of *SMASH* and sucks for the rest of the day.
Your example may be true about the 3.5 Barbarian, but you have to keep in mind we only have the core rules for PF. Also, theoretically, you can use those means to have more Rage points by converting 3.5's magic items/feats. It's not that hard really, using the Extra Rage feat as a guideline, each item/feat/ability that gives you more rages/day now gives you 6 more Rage points.


And that's not even counting the nerfs to the Fighter feats like Improved Trip.
I've seen the argument about this, I did not do the math, but I get the feeling having a +2 vs a static number compared to +4 vs a random number gives about the same odds. However I am not a math genius so I do not have the means to test it.

That being said, I want to say, before I hear you guys saying it, no I am not blindly defending Pathfinder. I am just reacting to something I feel isn't right. It's my opinion however, and also I still haven't played the game to actually see the numbers at work. Maybe I'll come back in a couple of weeks and say "You know, you were right".

On a side note: I don't think using 4E in an argument about Pathfinder is a fair thing to do. The game was build on top of 3.5, which is a very different system than 4E, hence I don't think the comparison to be fair.

[HamHam]

I've seen the argument about this, I did not do the math, but I get the feeling having a +2 vs a static number compared to +4 vs a random number gives about the same odds.

No, no it doesn't. A +4 and a +4 give about the same odds.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm playing in a Pathfinder game right now, and so far my main complaint is that Weapon Finesse doesn't let you apply your Dex mod to your CMB. Which means finesse fighters get screwed, since now you need 3 feats (Weapon Finesse, Agile Maneuvers, and Improved Disarm) to be good at disarming rather than just two. Our group has houseruled Agile Maneuvers' effects into Weapon Finesse.

[sofawall]

Say you have a +2 vs. 10.5.
Say you have a +4 vs. a d20, or average 10.5.

Hey, looks like on average, the +4 is better.

[Dienekes]

Well if you think about it, they didn't really take it out. They only simplified it. Before you had a number of points, spent 2 to start a rage, and one point per round to maintain it. Each Rage Power costed a number of point to activate.

Now you have a number of rounds per day, which is to say, the same as if you had points, only it does not cost you 2 points to enter a rage. And now Rage Powers costs nothing to activate.

I personally see this as an improvement.

In some ways I agree with you. The abilities worked better as not costing anything and available any time. Ex. Animal Fury, it makes no sense while a raging barbarian cannot bite someone any time they want.

However, part of why I liked rage points was that it added a fluidity to the barbarian, allowing it to directly confront problems. Take Clear Mind, it used to be a weighty but worthwhile against magic users, and if facing an illusionist or so forth you could focus your rage points on Clear Mind. Now however you only are able to use it once per rage.

[Kodra]

Finally released at GenCon this year, the long touted 3.5 update (3.75?) Pathfinder is now available. And now the PRD (Pathfinder Resource Document) is available online at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

And I think it's awesome. Classes that I never played look fun! Stuff I thought was broken is gone! Things I thought was convoluted and complicated, gone! The game has the same 3.5 feel with the 4th edition fun and that makes me incredibly excited. It feels like I'm playing D&D again, and it feels like there's all this cool stuff that we can now do.

I want to know what everyone else is thinking on this new system.

My Highlights:
Cleric Class redesign. The first hit to the CoDzilla was toning clerics down. They lost Heavy Armor, and their turning became a more general purpose ability for healing and undead harming. All in all, they are healing MONSTERS and they have so many awesome tricks that they seem like fun to play.

Paladin Class redesign. Paladins finally come into their own as the premier Holy Warrior. Smite is not an attack, but a declaration that lets the paladin perform smites on a target until they are dead. Lay on hands is a large chunk of healing (my 4th level paladin has 9 uses of it per day at 2d6 points of healing), and I'm looking forward to get Holy Weapon that lets me add enhancers to my chosen weapon. These guys are a ton of fun to play.

Monk Class redesign. The much maligned monks are getting alot of help. Ki is now a pool that lets you use various tricks, whether it's adding another attack per round or adding 4 to your AC for a round or Adding 20 ft movement. Monks can now pull off crazy maneuvers and seem like a fun class to play.

Let me know your thoughts

[RagnaroksChosen]

Things I thought was convoluted and complicated, gone! The game has the same 3.5 feel with the 4th edition fun and that makes me incredibly excited. It feels like I'm playing D&D again, and it feels like there's all this cool stuff that we can now do.

My Highlights:
Cleric Class redesign. The first hit to the CoDzilla was toning clerics down. They lost Heavy Armor, and their turning became a more general purpose ability for healing and undead harming. All in all, they are healing MONSTERS and they have so many awesome tricks that they seem like fun to play.

Paladin Class redesign. Paladins finally come into their own as the premier Holy Warrior. Smite is not an attack, but a declaration that lets the paladin perform smites on a target until they are dead. Lay on hands is a large chunk of healing (my 4th level paladin has 9 uses of it per day at 2d6 points of healing), and I'm looking forward to get Holy Weapon that lets me add enhancers to my chosen weapon. These guys are a ton of fun to play.

Monk Class redesign. The much maligned monks are getting alot of help. Ki is now a pool that lets you use various tricks, whether it's adding another attack per round or adding 4 to your AC for a round or Adding 20 ft movement. Monks can now pull off crazy maneuvers and seem like a fun class to play.

Let me know your thoughts


First i don't understand you statement it feels like I'm playing d&d again?
When was d&d not d&d?


Second Ya they worked on paladins added to Wizards who didn't need it. Druids got more powerful. clerics are still just as powerfull.

And now all those feats from all those supplements before are useless now with the way turning works.

Over all Thumbs down.. Only thing remotely good is the way the fighter is getting pritty much a feat every level.. cept the fubared fighter feats.

[Epinephrine]

Search the forums, there are many threads about it. Not all are of RagnaroksChosen's view - I think Pathfinder is WAY better than 3.5, though it has its flaws too.

[erikun]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120777&highlight=pathfinder
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120422&highlight=pathfinder

I've heard mixed reviews about it. There are honestly other RPG systems I'd rather but, but it's nice to hear people are enjoying the system.

[Serenity]

The classes are almost all really well done, in my opinion. The paladin and the druid are the highlights in my opinion, turning a class maligned for its weakness into one of the strognest melee classes in the game, and one half of CoDzilla into a strong and flavorful, but actually well-balanced class--primarily by an excellent, comprehensive fixed to polymorph-type spells. The rounds/day mechanic they instituted for Bardic Performance is a pretty big nerf, even with their brokenly powerful capstone (save-or-die, save and be paralyzed). I'd return to their Beta version of the Bard, which used the usual 1/level/day, and had a couple extra songs that are pretty nice. Rounds/day actually works out fairly well for the Barbarian's rage, on the other hand, though I might make the nifty rage powers usable 1/round, rather than 1/day or 1/rage.

The fighter's probably the least satisfying of the class changes, not doing enough to fix major issues like having to choose between damage and mobility. Still, he gets a feat almost literally every level, some bonuses to pulling off combat maneuvers, and weapon and armor bonuses that can dish out lots of damage. Looks to me like the path of optimization for a fighter will be weapons with a high chance of criticals, various Critical feets that add nasty effects to crit, combined with their capstone ability for more damaging criticals.

Their skill system is top-notch, though there's some consolidations I'd add, and some I'd alter, mainly to aid me in adapting Tome of Battle to work in the system. On the whole, great work though. I'm even coming around to the Fly skill

The big place they dropped the ball was in the Feats section, unfortunately. They added a Power Attack equivalent for archers, which was good--but then nerfed both of those from the useful and straightforward way it works in 3.5. Meanwhile, the +4 from the various Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats has been split into +2 each from an Improved and a Greater [Combat Maneuver] feat. They should be consolidated back together again--and the free attack should be put back into Improved Trip.

One major quibble, but with something so minor that it doesn't affect my enjoyment: I don't like their favored class system. In the Beta version, each race had two possible favored classes (one combat, one caster), selected one at character creation, and got a small boost to HP or skills whenever they took that class, as opposed to the stupid XP penalty in 3.5. This probably wasn't the most balanced system, but it had a certain charm--a charm that's been lost in the final version, where everyone, not just humans and half-elves, chooses their favored class. At that point, it's become so hopelessly generic that there's no point in having a favored class system in the first place.

And speaking of 3.5's XP penalties: XP is no longer a spendable resource in Pathfinder, which is how it should be. XP costs are generally reengineered into more expensive material components. I'll still have to figure out some other balancing point for Powers with XP costs if I want to bring Psionics into the game, but that's another story.

EDIT:


First i don't understand you statement it feels like I'm playing d&d again?
When was d&d not d&d?


Second Ya they worked on paladins added to Wizards who didn't need it. Druids got more powerful. clerics are still just as powerfull.

And now all those feats from all those supplements before are useless now with the way turning works.

Over all Thumbs down.. Only thing remotely good is the way the fighter is getting pritty much a feat every level.. cept the fubared fighter feats.

I'll be the first to admit that the Specialist class features they gave wizards were completely broken in the Beta version. In the final, however, they're significantly less powerful--useful, to be sure, but more flavorful than any kind of significant boost. Meanwhile, various feats and class abilities give melee types extra options for fisrupting casters, and keeping close to them to do so.

As for druids, they got demonstratably less powerful. The way their Wild Shape works now, they cannot ignore physical ability scores as they could in 3.5--they no longer assume the ability scores of what they change into, but rather gain bonuses or penalties to Strength and Dexterity based on the form.

As for the various Turn Undead feats--setting aside that, as I understand it, those are responsible for Clerics being part of CoDzilla in the first place--it seems to me that it's a matter of a few seconds to key them to expending a use of Channel Energy instead of expending a use of Turn Undead. What's the difference?

[Zadus]

I know there was a lot of slamming of pathfinder on these boards, but I just want to say that they changed a lot in the final release. For instance power attack is actually better than the 3.5 one; the nerfing of power attack was considered a major flaw in the beta.

My group is switching completely to pathfinder. I'm very excited about it. All in all it seems good.

[Mando Knight]

For instance power attack is actually better than the 3.5 one;

3.5's Shock Trooper would like to have a word with you about being "better."

As would this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121700) (though it doesn't declare the Pathfinder version better or worse)

[Jerthanis]

I haven't read the completed product yet, but I'd describe the Beta as "One step forward, two steps back", and one of my friends picked up the completed form and said that compared to the beta, the final version was the same way... one step forward, two steps back.

It frustrates me to see alterations to classes, feats, and spells that just makes me realize I'll need to constantly be referencing the books, or tripped up by my knowledge of the system that suddenly isn't true anymore, but that got changed for no real reason and fixed nothing in the process.

Like Rangers getting spell progression at a 1/6th faster rate. Or prerequisites for certain feats getting dropped, and other feats getting changed round for no reason... or how Full Plate arbitrarily got +1 more armor bonus for some reason.

That said, I like their skill system that does more to avoid discouraging crossclass skills, and to allow Rogue/Fighter to more closely mirror Fighter/Rogue. I see Pathfinder as a collection of houserules that the developers play with that they decided to put into print, and some of them I'd co-opt into my games, but most of them I wouldn't.

[Kodra]

There are a lot of small things that I can see that make a bit of sense. In response to the comment about Full Plate armor:

Full Plate is +9 / +1 which totals up to +10 AC
Breastplate is now +6 / +3 which totals up to +9 AC
Chain Shirt is +4 / +4 which totals up to +8 AC

Basically, they wanted each category of armor to be a little better than the category before it. This makes logical sense to me at least.

I will admit I play at the high levels very infrequently, and I prefer to play the game at levels 4-10 in 3.5. The rules seem to have done a good job at widening that sweet level spot for me a bit. Given how much I had to look up turning rules, I'm really happy with Channel Energy, and it makes Clerics a more dominant healer.

I also like that they made concentration checks harder, ensuring that players would think twice before just wading into combat and casting spells without a second thought.

I don't really use splat books much, so my comparison of this is a direct comparison of Core Rules to Core Rules. I'm sure that they will release splat books for Pathfinder as well, but right now I'm really excited about the core rulebooks they provide.

EDIT: For those interested in reading the completed product, the PRD is up and has all the completed information in it.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

[Random832]

Can anyone figure out what the formula for experience is?

[Cedrass]

The Medium speed is easy: Take your next level (2 if you're level 1) and multiply by 1000. You need that much XP to level up.

For the Slow and Fast speeds, no idea...

[Random832]

The Medium speed is easy: Take your next level (2 if you're level 1) and multiply by 1000. You need that much XP to level up.

2, 3, 4, 6, 8, ...nope

There's no regularity to how much that amount changes by, either.

The ratio between slow/medium and medium/fast hovers around 1.5, so clearly one was worked out and then the others were done by multiplying/dividing that and rounding to the nearest 1000 or so; that's not the complicated/arbitrary part.

[Shisumo]

It's actually based on the XP for encounters, and the number of encounters needed to level.

A CR 1 opponent gives a 4-person party 100 XP each. Every +2 CR doubles the amount of XP awarded (+1 CR is worth +50% XP).

The leveling rate is then based on how many encounters (of the party's CR) you expect to level from, based on your preferred speed of advancement. The fast progression is 13 (the 3.5 default), the medium progression is 20, and the slow progression is 30.

[Stephen_E]

Have only read the start and end of the thread but I'm playing Beta Pathfinder and have looked over the final stuff on the net.

I like pathfinder.

Balance: It's not any more balanced really than 3.5, but then while 3.5 is unbalanced in theory, in practice i.e. actual games I've played in, it was only once noticable (a Psion) and even then it wasn't much of a big deal. The truth is that it isn't the system that determines balance, it's the players. Most players I play with can't be bothered making a uber-wizard ect. It just isn't worth their effort (the exception is the Psion where it doesn't actually take any effort).

What I like about Pathfinder is it removes a lot of the clunkness of 3.5. Sure I can't trip/hit a person with the Improved trip feat, but at least it's a single roll to make the trip. Not a roll to attack, opposed roll to trip, opposed roll to counter trip if trip fails. The same is true of skills, the method is kept but the lev 1 clunkyness of 4xlev is dropped as is the double cost for non-class skills.

I don't consider it to be the best thing since sliced bread, and some of the classes didn't get much loving, but from what I've seen so far it's more playable than 3.5, and when it comes down to it I play DnD for ease of play and fun along with the ability to make the character I want. Not to make the most uber PC in the group. So Pathfinder works ok for me.

Stephen E

PS. The FAQ/review linked to at the beginning of the thread read like a hardline Democrat/Republican "neutral analysis" of the oppositions policy. Neither neutral nor much of an analysis with a bunch of hate thrown in for good measure.

[Random832]

It's actually based on the XP for encounters, and the number of encounters needed to level.

Well, not quite - though it's close enough that I could buy it as the original basis for it and then they fudged the numbers to be nice round-sounding ones.

Thanks

[Draquenoire]

I got the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and I like it. I'm not a hardcore gamer nor any of my friends really. Maybe that's why I like it? What I do know is that I really like the new crap Fighter got and I'm gonna roll one up here soon for an upcoming campaign that's using the new rules.

[Random832]

So are there any spells/items that are named after trademarked characters like WotC's Mordenkainen etc?

[LibraryOgre]

So are there any spells/items that are named after trademarked characters like WotC's Mordenkainen etc?

The spells are there, but with their SRD names (Mage's Disjunction, for example).

Incidentally, anyone remember the "Guardians of the Flame" series by Joel Rosenberg? It starts out with a group playing an RPG, and most of the spells have two names... the official version, and the short version.



"Okay." Riccetti closed his eyes. If James Michael could remember his spells, so could he.
Good.
"i'm carrying... Herstell's Spell of --"
"Just the short names."
"Make that Sleep, Lightning, Fire, Glow Temporarily, the two-way version of Charm, Injure, Preserve, Shatter Metal, and Dispel Magic. That's nine, isn't it?"


For those of you who don't remember it, you have no excuse. It's available for $5 from Webscription. (http://www.webscription.net/p-191-the-guardians-of-the-flame.aspx)

[BobVosh]

The spells are there, but with their SRD names (Mage's Disjunction, for example).

Incidentally, anyone remember the "Guardians of the Flame" series by Joel Rosenberg? It starts out with a group playing an RPG, and most of the spells have two names... the official version, and the short version.



For those of you who don't remember it, you have no excuse. It's available for $5 from Webscription. (http://www.webscription.net/p-191-the-guardians-of-the-flame.aspx)

Hah! Finally someone else who has read those books. My D&D group is bizarrely illerate, or something.

I really like the new pathfinder stuff. They definitly made Domains/Specialist wizards stuff back to what it should be. Made it so someone should consider something other than generalist wizard. I really REALLY liked the changes to paladin. Nerfed all the SoD, and the best of the SoL/SoS. Finally nerfed Dispel magic. I'm humored that cleric lost full plate. Glad they buffed the heavier armors a bit. All the ones from hide + got 1 more AC. Kinda neat how fighters are no longer the slowest in the party in thier platemail. Glad they combined all the perceptions to only one again, it was stupid to combine then split into 5. Still like the races more than SRDs. Grease/web/glitterdust/forcecage are all much, much better (in terms of balance) and so many more. That was big enough to be said twice. Power attack and combat expertise are very balanced now IMO. Moderate nerf + moderate buff.

Bad stuff imo: Splitting CMB feats into 2. (Disarm, greater disarm, etc) Favored class should be set like someone above said. Why can't paladins use tower shields? Why do tower shields give such a minus to attack? Also why did they add facing rules for the full cover?

I will post here again once I get a better look.

[UserClone]

The spells are there, but with their SRD names (Mage's Disjunction, for example).

Incidentally, anyone remember the "Guardians of the Flame" series by Joel Rosenberg? It starts out with a group playing an RPG, and most of the spells have two names... the official version, and the short version.



For those of you who don't remember it, you have no excuse. It's available for $5 from Webscription. (http://www.webscription.net/p-191-the-guardians-of-the-flame.aspx)

No freaking way! I read that AGES ago, and loved it, but I couldn't remember the name. The only name I could recall was Einar Lightfi- I mean, Einar One-Hand.

<.<
>.>

...anyway, thanks.

[LibraryOgre]

Hah! Finally someone else who has read those books. My D&D group is bizarrely illerate, or something.


I not only read them, every time I reread them, I start drafting game rules in my head for the system they hint around.

[PinkysBrain]

And speaking of 3.5's XP penalties: XP is no longer a spendable resource in Pathfinder, which is how it should be. XP costs are generally reengineered into more expensive material components. I'll still have to figure out some other balancing point for Powers with XP costs if I want to bring Psionics into the game, but that's another story.
Give them all psicrystals which can be increased in value with some type of material component using ritual, then during manifestation take it out again?

[Starbuck_II]

Give them all psicrystals which can be increased in value with some type of material component using ritual, then during manifestation take it out again?

Deep Crystal?

It is a special material in the XPH that is made for psionic stuff.

[PinkysBrain]

No I mean real psicrystals like the psion, although you could have it eat deep crystals to increase it's value :)

[Frosty]

Bard's nerf to rounds of music per day can be somewhat fixed by taking the Lingering Song feat. Now certain songs like Inspire Courage, Competence, Greatness etc will use up only one round of your song since you can just let it drop and it'[ll go for another minute, and one minute should be the time it takes for combat to end.

[Stephen_E]

Bard's nerf to rounds of music per day can be somewhat fixed by taking the Lingering Song feat. Now certain songs like Inspire Courage, Competence, Greatness etc will use up only one round of your song since you can just let it drop and it'[ll go for another minute, and one minute should be the time it takes for combat to end.

Strictly speaking the feat in 3.5 extended the 5 round linger effect to 10 rds.
Therefore in Pathfinder it should only extend the 0 rounds of linger effect to 5 rounds (which still makes the Bard more powerful than in 3.5).

The Bard in our party took her 3rd lev as an air element sorceror after we got the final pathfinder rules. Quite a nice RP move given that she uses a wind instrument and voice for her performances.

I'm looking at having my Ranger take his 4th or 5th lev as a Wizard - Specalist Diviner. The "always act in the surprise round" and the "+1 to init" makes it well worthwhile for a "point man", as well as by taking Arcane Bond - Wand and Practiced spellcaster he can, for a quite reasonable cost to the party in time and money, turn his bonded wand into a multiple wand of anything on his spell lists that any of us or an ally can cast. In a 3 person party (Bard/Sorceror, Ranger/Diviner, Paladin) doing a published campaign this could be a real lifesaver. We've already had 1 technical TPK.

Stephen E

PS. This campaign didn't start in a pub for once. The PC's are half-elf/human half-brother/half-sister twins and the half-elf half-sister of the brother. So we're all just family.

[heathansson]

That didn't impact my credibility, I actually got a chuckle from that. I mean, come on. We all know at least a few supporters of D&D 3/3.5 who refuse to admit that the game has balance issues, or who hand wave it away in any number of ways.* My own opinion of these people is rather aligned with the author of "Pathfinder: the Lowdown".
Is this an accurate statement? Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it is accurate, then the (deserved, in my opinion) disdain for the WotC D&D play testers will have to make room for paizo beneath them.
Is this true? If so, then I believe that it demonstrates one thing very clearly: A large number of D&D players are far more interested in the wiz-bang of spell casters and care not one bit for class balance. If paizo had an opportunity to produce a balanced but unappreciated version of D&D, and instead produced a even more unbalanced version of D&D which sold out their initial print run, who can blame them for chasing profits over making a good and balanced game?



* The one which amuses me the most goes like this: "But the guy who spends all his time learning how to break the laws of physics should be much more powerful than the guy who spends all his time learning how to swing a sword better." And never mind that if this is true then there is no need at all to even print rules for playing a Fighter, because everyone should be playing caster classes. Because in a game played by equals no one should have the role of Those Chumps Who Hit Things For You, Stop Things From Hitting You, And Heal You When You Need It, While You Do All The Important Stuff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19085).

Uh, here's the truth: Frank Trollman, and I think some others like one "Psychic Robot" and some "Logic Ninja Crusader" something or other guy got banned at Paizo for essentially popping off and being abusive.
Frank got a 1 week ban and never came back; he was never permabanned. He really has a mouth on him when he gets going.
Psychic Robot got a ban for a week, came back, was okay for a while, then started popping off again and got permabanned. I don't remember what happened to the Logical Ninja Crusader or whatever, but that's the truth.
These guys were involved in apples and apples comparisons.
They were also involved in a lot of horse apple throwing.
Honest to God, they all need to go back to 4chan or wherever they came from. They're smart guys though. Their mouth is just a whole hell of a lot smarter.

[Matthew]

I have heard it rumoured that some of those guys were play testers for D20/4e...

[Starbuck_II]

I have heard it rumoured that some of those guys were play testers for D20/4e...

Yes, but there were only given a number of the powers and couldn't really compare them versus each other to make sure all were decent (looking at Sure strike as example of a not so decent).

At least that is what people who Played Tested have said.

Hmm, I do wonder is Lingering Song is compatible.

[Stephen_E]

Hmm, I do wonder is Lingering Song is compatible.

I've asked and the non-official replies reckon it probably isn't, the trouble is that without some sort of lingering effect the total number of rounds per day is so low as to reduce it to a minor class feature.

In 3.5 a 5th lev Bard (18 cha) could make his songs last for an absolute minimum of 30 rounds without feats.
In Pathfinder its an absolute maximum of 16 rounds without feats.

Stephen E

[Frosty]

I've asked and the non-official replies reckon it probably isn't, the trouble is that without some sort of lingering effect the total number of rounds per day is so low as to reduce it to a minor class feature.

In 3.5 a 5th lev Bard (18 cha) could make his songs last for an absolute minimum of 30 rounds without feats.
In Pathfinder its an absolute maximum of 16 rounds without feats.

Stephen E

Yah. Again, which is why I, and probably many other people, will heavily houserule Pathfinder. I'll be using the old Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and allow Lingering Song to work.

[Stephen_E]

Yah. Again, which is why I, and probably many other people, will heavily houserule Pathfinder. I'll be using the old Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and allow Lingering Song to work.

I quite like the new Power Attack. Powerful but limited. Not subject to the various breaks you could do with Warchanter, True Strike or Wraith Touch to name a few.

I have seen a great mod for Lingering song. Lingering song doubled the length of linger in 3.5 so have it double the length of song in Pathfinder. Thus every 1 "round" spent on the song makes it last 2 rounds.

Both balanced and strong.

Stephen E

[LibraryOgre]

I quite like the new Power Attack. Powerful but limited. Not subject to the various breaks you could do with Warchanter, True Strike or Wraith Touch to name a few.

I have seen a great mod for Lingering song. Lingering song doubled the length of linger in 3.5 so have it double the length of song in Pathfinder. Thus every 1 "round" spent on the song makes it last 2 rounds.

Both balanced and strong.

Stephen E

That doubles your length of music... and improved music adds a flat +6. Unless lingering song also doubles improved music (or whatever it's called), then what's the point of taking imp. music?

[Stephen_E]

That doubles your length of music... and improved music adds a flat +6. Unless lingering song also doubles improved music (or whatever it's called), then what's the point of taking imp. music?

Imp Music give you more versatality.
It's like in 3.5 you could get more uses of music per day and lingering music. Serious Bards often took both if they could.

Using Lingering music as suggested allows you to have to songs going at once which is indeed useful, but without Iml Music you run out of rounds way to soon.
1st round start Song X - lasts 2 rounds.
2nd round start Sony Y - lasts 2 rounds
3rd round spend 1 rounds use as free action to keep Song X going for another 2 rounds
4th round spend 1 rounds use as free action to keep Song Y going for another 2 rounds.
Ectre.

Also note that if you have Lingering music then yes, Imp Music becomes 12 rounds effectively, making it much more interesting to take.

Stephen E

[Grommen]

Thats fair, but the arcane heritage can easily serve as that "generic sorcerer". Would it have been better if they just included arcane heritage, then dropped all the alternate heritages in different splatbooks as alternate class features? I think they were right to put a dozen options in core, so that when people decide to write their own heritages, they have a lot of examples to try to balance them against.

We don't thinks this is coming down the pipe? Along with more Rage powers, fighter abilities, Rogue skills and tricks?

It is an open game too if I read the information correctly. So save up all your ideas everyone and we can publish them as well.

Their is a lot of information and new ideas in this Pathfinder D20 base book, the sucker is huge! But their is always room for more stuff. And with little tweaks and changes they will probably publish similar but different versions of the Complete books, and all that good stuff.

So far I'm pretty happy with the game. The few problems I'm reading are solved by Page 9 of the book where it states that if you don't like a rule....Get ride of it.

[DragoonWraith]

One thing I do like about Pathfinder is that the Celestial bloodline Sorcerer gets a "spycheck" ability.

[UserClone]

The few problems I'm reading are solved by Page 9 of the book where it states that if you don't like a rule....Get ride[sic] of it.

-Which is, of course, a weak argument in favor of a game, since it applies to any game, whether or not that point is made explicit in the text of the game itself.

That having been said, I just got my copy yesterday, and it is indeed a mighty tome, defeated for page count within the scope of D20 by only Ptolus as far as I know. And I like it all so far.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Yah. Again, which is why I, and probably many other people, will heavily houserule Pathfinder. I'll be using the old Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and allow Lingering Song to work.So now I'm wondering why a person would pay to purchase Pathfinder and then heavily house rule it when they could simply heavily house rule their previously purchased 3.5 books?

[Gnaeus]

1. To play it at games that I don't run. (like at Conventions)
2. Because a hardback book carries some weight when I propose some of its houserules to DMs in games I am playing.
3. To support their efforts in keeping D&D alive in the gaming community.

[thegurullamen]

So now I'm wondering why a person would pay to purchase Pathfinder and then heavily house rule it when they could simply heavily house rule their previously purchased 3.5 books?

This sort of response comes up so often it needs a name. Any suggestions?

Short answer: They want to. That's....pretty much it, actually.

Long answer: Pathfinder looks like a fun spin on an old favorite, despite some of its flaws/flavors, either of which can easily be overwritten as per the strength of the 3.X system. So say we all.

[LibraryOgre]

So now I'm wondering why a person would pay to purchase Pathfinder and then heavily house rule it when they could simply heavily house rule their previously purchased 3.5 books?

To have lighter houserules? "I want to do XYZ. If I do it in 3.5, I have to also houserule ABCDEFG to be like Pathfinder."

[BillyJimBoBob]

To have lighter houserules?The statement was "I [...] will heavily houserule Pathfinder." My bolds for emphasis. This does not seem to support "lighter" house rules.

Of course everything is relative, and I suppose anyone could say that 3.5 requires even more heavy house rules. But whatever.

[FMArthur]

Take from it what you would from Unearthed Arcana: a bunch of variant rules that for the most part can be taken separately. You can write your own big tome of house rules, but why bother if you're trying to do some of the things that Pathfinder already does.

[FatR]

To have lighter houserules?
Pathfinder demands heavier houserules, because it worse than 3.X on almost every level. You must start with throwing 3/4ths of their changes into the trashcan, before you can fix anything.

[UserClone]

Pathfinder demands heavier houserules, because it worse than 3.X on almost every level. You must start with throwing 3/4ths of their changes into the trashcan, before you can fix anything.

Wow, that's a bold statement. I'm going to guess that not only haven't you played, but you haven't even read the final rulebook, much less own it. Be honest. How far off am I?

[Frosty]

Pathfinder does SOME stuff right, and my friend already purchased the rulebook. It make me have to houserule less overall compared to plain 3.5, but still requires heavy houseruling.

[Zeful]

Pathfinder demands heavier houserules, because it worse than 3.X on almost every level. You must start with throwing 3/4ths of their changes into the trashcan, before you can fix anything.

That's a matter of opinion. Pathfinder would require heavier houserules for me, simply because I think Pathfinder went the wrong way in it's design for certain classes, and would have to build those classes from scratch. For others that's not necessarily true, and would only need some tweaks to the system to make it work "properly", something 3.5 does if your casual about playing it.

At this point "Good" and "Bad" are matters of perception.

[Stephen_E]

Dropping out of Rage needs a houserule because they made it "falling unconcious ends rage" which makes raging above 5th lev pretty much a "get a new character sheet out and start working on your new character".

But that's not hard to do. A Rage power (immediate activation) to go comatose for 5 rounds before dying, even if at death point due to dropping out of rage, and only check for death at end of the 5 rounds.

I'd also do a converion for the Extended Rage and Lingering music feats from 3.5 to make rounds of Rage and Music count 1 for 2, they both a bit shorted IMHO on how much they can use their core abilities.

I don't like the nerf of Spiked Chain, but apparently the philosophy is that exotic weapons should be no better than martial weapons and you spend the feat for prof just for the coolness factor. Given that philosophy it's a resonable move.

Some of the forum posters at pathfinder have there knickers twisted way to tight over Clerics losing Hv Armour Prof.

That covers the bulk of my complaints so far.
I am playing the system, have the book on layby and have been reading the pathfinder reference document on line.

Stephen E

[BobVosh]

I wish they empowered the other exotic weapons, but I don't feel the spike chain nerf is inappropiate.

I still like the clerics losing heavy armor.

[Frosty]

No one will ever want to take spiked chain ever again unless one wants a finessable trip/disarm weapon and ytou also take that feat that allows you to use tour DEX for those special maneuvers.

[archerpwr]

Uh, here's the truth: Frank Trollman, and I think some others like one "Psychic Robot" and some "Logic Ninja Crusader" something or other guy got banned at Paizo for essentially popping off and being abusive.
Frank got a 1 week ban and never came back; he was never permabanned. He really has a mouth on him when he gets going.
Psychic Robot got a ban for a week, came back, was okay for a while, then started popping off again and got permabanned. I don't remember what happened to the Logical Ninja Crusader or whatever, but that's the truth.
These guys were involved in apples and apples comparisons.
They were also involved in a lot of horse apple throwing.
Honest to God, they all need to go back to 4chan or wherever they came from. They're smart guys though. Their mouth is just a whole hell of a lot smarter.
Logic Ninja and Crusader of Logic aren't even close to being the same person. Both of them were at the Pathfinder boards for a while, but only one of them playtested 4E. So yeah, I (who didn't ever check the PF boards) know more of what happened there than your supposed first hand explanation (if it isn't first hand, why would you post this stuff?). Congrats.

[BobVosh]

I got a question on a spell from pathfinder. Stoneskin (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/stoneskin.html#stoneskin-anchor).

The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction.

That really sounds like you get (basically) ignore 10 damage, then apply DR. For an effective DR 20.

Example time: Wizzard takes 23 from dagger. He only takes 3.
Wizzard takes 23 from admantine/+4 dagger. He only takes 13.

Or it is 13/23. Basically how it used to work.

Is this just really poor wording, or did they want to change it?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#Dying
Also whoever mentioned the barbarian likely to die after level 5, it is probably level 7-9. You go to -con modifier now, instead of -10.

Thats how I think it should be. It is just isn't clear.
|
\/

[Kaiyanwang]

I got a question on a spell from pathfinder. Stoneskin (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/stoneskin.html#stoneskin-anchor).

The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction.

That really sounds like you get (basically) ignore 10 damage, then apply DR. For an effective DR 20.

Example time: Wizzard takes 23 from dagger. He only takes 3.
Wizzard takes 23 from admantine/+4 dagger. He only takes 13.

Or it is 13/23. Basically how it used to work.

Is this just really poor wording, or did they want to change it?

IMHO, you are wrong. The text is only a lillte bit redundant, and, respectfully, the way you suggest is only bending the meaning of the text.

So, 13/23.

[Random832]

I got a question on a spell from pathfinder. Stoneskin (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/stoneskin.html#stoneskin-anchor).

The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction.

Everything after "The subject gains DR 10/adamantine" is an explanation of how damage reduction works.

In the D&D SRD, the same wording is present (but is in parentheses, so it's more clear that it's talking about the DR)

[BobVosh]

Should have said "it reduces" rather than "it ignores." Bah! Or italics/parentheses.

[Epinephrine]

Well, having played with the final now for a bit, and having had a chance to read it more thoroughly, they did screw the CMB stuff up between beta and final.

Beta:
CMB was BAB+Str+Size (and size bonuses are messed up).
DC was 15+CMB

Comment: I found it annoying that there was no adjustment for AC/Dexterity - in 3.5 the fact that a touch AC roll is needed helps with that - you can't grab a really fast enemy (thinking Will-o' Wisp, for example). I felt that perhaps using better of Dex and Str would make sense, or something.

Final
CMB is BAB+Str+SIze (Size bonuses still messed up)
DC is 10+Dex+Str+Size+Deflection AC+Sacred AC+monk AC bonus, Wis to AC...

Comment: Adding Monk AC bonus and wisdom to AC bonus makes monks darn near impossible to trip, grapple, etc. I like this, actually. Making it 10+Dex+Str instead makes it easier to use combat maneuvers on most foes, which I don't like. Adding all the various AC bonuses doesn't make much sense for a universal modifier - how does your deflection bonus prevent you from being disarmed?

Also: They have added all bonuses to attack to your CMB roll in the final. This makes it ludicrously easy to succeed combat maneuvers, since attack rolls are much easier to optimize than ability contests. A wizard with True Strike can plop most high level fighters on their butts with a trip. Stupid.


Beta:
Old tumble DCs were 15+BAB for avoiding AoO, 20+BAB to tumble through a square. I liked that.

Final:
DC to tumble without AoO is the foe's CMD DC; to tumble through is CMD DC+5.

Comment: Why? Why would having deflection bonuses etc. make it harder to tumble? Ludicrous.

[Stephen_E]

Sounds like they went overboard with the "one mechanic will rule them all".

This will all come to a bad end with something getting chucked into a active volcano and lots of people dying. I can just see it. The blood will run over the keyboards. :-(

I have to say much as I like a lot about Pathfinder some of the attitudes and how they influence the decisions disturb me.
Things such as exotic weapons aren't meant to be better than standard weapons, regardless of the feat required to use them, they're just meant to be exotic. WTF! And this is from the head designer.

Stephen

[Typewriter]

Pathfinder demands heavier houserules, because it worse than 3.X on almost every level. You must start with throwing 3/4ths of their changes into the trashcan, before you can fix anything.

My group, which consists of me as DM who has been playing/DMing for 8 years, a player who is 23 and grew up having his father run him through 1st/2nd edition dungeons, a rules hound who has been playing for about 6 years, and two people who are fairly new to roleplaying games in general, all started playing Pathfinder three sessions ago after obsessing over the beta, and love it. I can't think of anything we houseruled. We'll probably wind up with a few, just from finding simple problems just like in 3.X, or things we don't agree with which is no fault of the system.

I bought two copies of the hardcover and one of the pdf so that I could make sure to have resources available for players who didn't purchase the book.

If you think that it's 'worse than 3.x on almost every level' then you are entitled to think that, but you should know that there are a lot of people who disagree with you, and don't feel the need to trash 3/4 of a system that works just fine.

[LibraryOgre]

Pathfinder demands heavier houserules, because it worse than 3.X on almost every level. You must start with throwing 3/4ths of their changes into the trashcan, before you can fix anything.

Now THAT is how you write an unbiased post. Nothing but pure fact, without the shred of personal opinion to color things.

[wadledo]

Now THAT is how you write an unbiased post. Nothing but pure fact, without the shred of personal opinion to color things.

Dear Mithra, I hope that was sarcasm.

[UserClone]

Now THAT is how you write an unbiased post. Nothing but pure fact, without the shred of personal opinion to color things.

"Hey! You got your Mr. Nexx in my Mark Hall!"

"No, YOU got your Mark Hall in my Mr. Nexx!"

:smalltongue:

[LibraryOgre]

Dear Mithra, I hope that was sarcasm.

Nope. I'm simply that ignorant.

[Starbuck_II]

I got a question on a spell from pathfinder. Stoneskin (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/stoneskin.html#stoneskin-anchor).

The subject gains DR 10/adamantine. It ignores the first 10 points of damage each time it takes damage from a weapon, though an adamantine weapon bypasses the reduction.


That is partly an explaination. I have no clue why it says ignore. But so did 3.5 SRD.



Things such as exotic weapons aren't meant to be better than standard weapons, regardless of the feat required to use them, they're just meant to be exotic. WTF! And this is from the head designer.

Yeah, I read that thread and face palmed.

[UserClone]

Wow. That is a pretty ignorant statement. Why would you give up some of your personal power (a feat) just to wield a unique weapon, that doesn't do anything special? IF that's the case, Id just as soon let my players (at least the ones with all martial proficiencies) train with it for a while to just gain proficiency.

[Starbuck_II]

Yeah, here is a Pathfinder one:
Spiked Chain: 2d4 (non reach), weapon finessable, +2 disarm/ can drop when tripping.

Yeah, they went too far.
If they would have made it a reach (non-adjacent) it might still be worth it, but as is... Heavy Flail.

[Stephen_E]

I like a lot of pathfinder and am playing it.

And lets face it the nerfing of spiked chain is largely <shrug> I won't use it. Although I am having a furious debate with people who're telling me broken it was, meanwhile repeatedly getting the rules wrong as they show me how broken it was. I'm not surprised they thought it was broken.

It's the attitude behind it that I find disturbing long-term.
The "just because it costs a feat is no reason it should be better in any way".

Stephen

[Fax Celestis]

It's the attitude behind it that I find disturbing long-term.
The "just because it costs a feat is no reason it should be better in any way".

Under the same logic, a fighter who takes Power Attack shouldn't be any better than a fighter who doesn't.

[Nero24200]

I
And lets face it the nerfing of spiked chain is largely <shrug> I won't use it. Although I am having a furious debate with people who're telling me broken it was, meanwhile repeatedly getting the rules wrong as they show me how broken it was

Or going on about how great their game is, even point-blank refusing to accept ths possibility that it isn't perfect, when, just by the simple fact that it's a RPing game, means it will never be perfect and physcially impossible to cover every base.

Before anyone asks, yes, I've had to put up with alot of Paizo fanboys.

[UserClone]

Well put. A feat is a precious resource, and you shouldn't need to spend a feat on anything non-mechanical, such as "having a neat weapon." Having a substantially more powerful weapon, however, made sense to have to lose the feat.

[Typewriter]

Or going on about how great their game is, even point-blank refusing to accept ths possibility that it isn't perfect, when, just by the simple fact that it's a RPing game, means it will never be perfect and physcially impossible to cover every base.

Before anyone asks, yes, I've had to put up with alot of Paizo fanboys.

I agree that no system is perfect, it's pretty much just wandering from system to system looking for the rules that I currently feel like putting up with. My personal favorite system is WoD, but I don't really have the mental capacity to deal with it long term...I'm not dumb or anything, but I just have a lot of trouble retaining any information from those books.

[Mongoose87]

Well put. A feat is a precious resource, and you shouldn't need to spend a feat on anything non-mechanical, such as "having a neat weapon." Having a substantially more powerful weapon, however, made sense to have to lose the feat.

I like the way it goes in that one rule, I think it was in Trollman's PDF, where a fighter can become proficient with any weapon by training with it for a few days.

[Fax Celestis]

I agree that no system is perfect, it's pretty much just wandering from system to system looking for the rules that I currently feel like putting up with. My personal favorite system is WoD, but I don't really have the mental capacity to deal with it long term...I'm not dumb or anything, but I just have a lot of trouble retaining any information from those books.

Try changing how you read the books. I have trouble reading WoD books when they're actual books, but I do fine on a screen. And it's actually vice-versa for D&D books: I retain almost nothing when I read it on a screen, but when I have a physical book it's pretty much memorized.

[Typewriter]

Try changing how you read the books. I have trouble reading WoD books when they're actual books, but I do fine on a screen. And it's actually vice-versa for D&D books: I retain almost nothing when I read it on a screen, but when I have a physical book it's pretty much memorized.

I think a lot of trouble I have with it is that I like it as much as I do. They hide the rules in pages of story/background/fluff and I get wrapped up in all that stuff and will stumble through the rules without even realizing it. I especially love DMing WoD because it usually seemed like I could just look at stats and skills and randomly decide what people need to roll based on the situation. I think the next time I use WoD it's going to be WoD base book. Maybe with one more....but definately not too much....

[pres_man]

Under the same logic, a fighter who takes Power Attack shouldn't be any better than a fighter who doesn't.

I think PF did a "good" job of fixing that, yes.
:smallsigh: