Fixin' Pathfinder

[Fedorchik]

There is some active discussion about Pathfinder and it's flaws going right now on this forum. How about we some kind of 'compendium' about possible pathfinder fixes and, eventually, a PF houserule set?

I was going to do some houseruling for my game and I find information on this forum helpful, so naturally I want to share any results. But i don't want to press my opinion on someone, so I'd rather present some kind of possible options on each topic.
What I'm going to do:
1. Start a series of forum threads each dedicated to one specific issue that should be fixed. I'm not going to create simultaneously hundreds of treads. i think about making one at a time. And I'm not going to make a thread to each individual spell/feat/trait, more like 'fixing barbarian'.
2. Present an issue and some ideas to solve it. Than gather some feedback to modify current options, discard bad ones and add new ideas.
3. Link thread to a main (This one, I think).
4. Compose houserule set based on gathered option and make it publicly available.

I realize that this a lot of work and I may become busy/bored/add_other_reason and just drop off eventually, but currently I want to give it a try.

So what do you think? Should I do it? Or just forget about and don't waste valuable time and storage space?

[Fedorchik]

Game Basics:
Combat Maneuvers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285839)
Spells (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15460993#post15460993)

Classes:
Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15320833)

[AuraTwilight]

Generally, anything that would fix 3.5 would also fix Pathfinder. Both games need to be completely rebuilt at their very foundations. Anything else is just bandaids.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, this is my fix for the monk (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=416.0); several of the points are literally just undoing PF's negative changes.

This is my unfinished Rogue fix (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?319142-Rogue-Pure-skill-personified) along with my most recent attempt at fixing tumble (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?319142-Rogue-Pure-skill-personified/page3) (for those who refuse to go back to the DC 15 and 25 that worked just fine). The moving around of skill groupings is a separate thing you can ignore if you want.

I would rather see Jump taken from Acrobatics and merged w/ Climb for Athletics; Perception stripped of Search; and Search moved somewhere... Either merged with Sleight of Hand as a dex-based skill or merged w/ Appraise (in which case it would be taken off wizard's skill list) as an int-based skill. The perception thing is especially important, IMO. It's just too good right now, and having search there and wis-based kinda dooms rogues to mediocrity at their supposed niche.

Post I made a while ago on fixing combat maneuvers:
You could start by undoing some of the damage pathfinder inflicted on the entire maneuver system:

- Combine Improved and Greater maneuver feats into a single feat that gives +4 bonus and the other benefits of each, with the pre-reqs of the Improved feat. 3E had no "greater" feats - you just got the full benefit w/ one feat (and its inevitable power attack, expertise, or imp. unarmed required).

- Grapple can replace any attack, including AoOs. You do NOT have to "maintain" the check each round, if you're content to just hold them till they break free. Each successful grapple check deals unarmed damage to the target (unless you don't want it to). It takes TWO checks to go from pinned to free - one to get out of pinned, one to get out of grapple. If you are pinning someone, you can prevent them from speaking. Foes that are grappling lose dex to AC against anyone other than the foes they're grappling.
ALL of the above was how it worked in 3E. Grapple got nerfed super hard in PF. Honestly, I probably forgot some things.

- Bull rushing someone causes him to provoke AoOs, even if you have no BR feats. As in 3E.

- Having more than 2 legs never gives more than +4 vs. trip, as in 3E. Flyers are NOT auto-immune to trip and you can use the 3E Rules of the Game rules for stalling fliers with trip.

Then you can do some more:

- Let people attempt maneuvers against foes of any size. If you have the check high enough to have a chance, you should be allowed to try!

- Make bull rush add +5 ft moved per 3 you win by, or something. CMD is stupidly high, using the old 3E rule of 5 ft per 5 is just too punishing.

- Consolidate the maneuvers. Seriously, there's too damn many. IMO, Steal shouldn't even be a maneuver, roll it into Sleight of Hand, use rules similar to the feinting rules of Bluff for stealing in combat. Combine Drag with Bull Rush. Combine Reposition with Trip. Combine Dirty Trick with Disarm. That way feats or bonuses can apply to the pair of them. I especially don't know why drag needed its own maneuver when it's so ridiculously similar to bull rush...

- Make available feats to perform a maneuver on top of attacking for damage. PF has the [name] Strike feats, but basing it on crits is lame and random. Eidolons are cool for maneuvers specifically because they get cheap evolutions to tag their regular attack routine with things like Grab, Pull, Push, and Trip. If it's balanced for a caster's class feature, why is it such a no-no for actual martial characters to do it?!

[T.G. Oskar]

I would rather see Jump taken from Acrobatics and merged w/ Climb for Athletics; Perception stripped of Search; and Search moved somewhere... Either merged with Sleight of Hand as a dex-based skill or merged w/ Appraise (in which case it would be taken off wizard's skill list) as an int-based skill. The perception thing is especially important, IMO. It's just too good right now, and having search there and wis-based kinda dooms rogues to mediocrity at their supposed niche.

I'd seriously treat Jump as its own skill. There's merit in having Jump be part of both Acrobatics and Athletics, as both sets of skills might take advantage of it; however, since both have a claim of equal weight (i.e., an acrobat or gymnast will have an equal reason to master jumping as an athlete would, with the latter mastering the high and the long jump while the former would master the ability to hop down and somersault, for example), collapsing the skill into one of the two skill sets will do some disservice to leapers. By having it separate, both acrobats and athletes will have equal access to leaping skills.

On the other hand, I don't see why Search has to be removed from Perception, as careful searching is by all means a question of good perception rather than anything else in particular. The WIS requirement is a strong argument, but you might want to consider how Disable Device is still an Int-based skill, AND how Open Lock was collapsed into it, so the loss is less painful. I'd consider tweaking the Perception DC checks to be less abusive (virtually no trap ever has a Search/Perception check under 20, so you always need Trapfinding). Then again, I wouldn't mind allowing Rangers to get Disable Device and Trapfinding as well, and considering how Rangers do Wis better than Int, it would be the same problem from a different perspective (Rangers would be the premier trap-searchers, but they won't disable traps as Rogues would). I wouldn't certainly mix it with Sleight of Hand, of course.

[Kudaku]

If the main reason to alter Perception is to make rogues more viable at their intended niche, couldn't you reach the same point by tweaking the rogue's Trap Finding ability? At the moment they get 1/2 level to perception in order to find traps, and 1/2 level to Disable Device in order to disable them.

If you reword the class ability to simply give a scaling bonus to all applications of perception and disable device, that'd go a long way.

As for Acrobatics and 'Athletics' for jump... Have you considered letting both skills have the jump application? They each approach jumping from a different angle, so why not let both skills have the option? You could either keep the same charts for both skills or tweak them in order to reflect that athletics would jump with sheer strength while acrobatics would be more about agile and flexible jumping.


I'd consider tweaking the Perception DC checks to be less abusive (virtually no trap ever has a Search/Perception check under 20, so you always need Trapfinding).

I believe this was altered from 3.5 to PF. Anyone can find and disable non-magical traps now, Trapfinding merely gives you the option to disable magic traps via disable device.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Happened to be thinking about this last night. Some ideas that occurred to me. These are caster centric but not trying to be complete (ahem) magic bullets:

1. Initiative: Initiative is changed to 1d20 + Dex + BAB. High level combatants develop exceptional reflexes and are always ready to act.

2. Defensive Casting: Does not exist. You cast you provoke AoO. Combat Casting become +2 Concentration general bonus.

3. Standard Casting: Becomes 1 Round or at least 1 Full Round Action. Quicken casts at a standard action. Anything else not feather fall is banned or lengthened.

4. Iron Will (and its siblings): Scales with level. Something like Base: +2, 5th: +3, 10th: +4, 15th: +5.

5. Summoning Spells: Summons one particular entity (or group) each time for each spell. The summon takes damage it takes time to heal, it "dies" it can't be summoned until the next day. Variations of Summon Meat Shield can still be done but like Protection from Whatever, as discrete separate spells. Arcane casters learn different variations separately. Divine casters and the Summoner class ability only have one per spell level but can change it when they gain a new spell level.

6. Time is an Abstract at GM Discretion: More of a guideline. Battles do not take six seconds a round, they take rounds how much this ends up being is GM discretion. Minute durations are more like "a scene" to lift from White Wolf. While you might use it for a challenge outside of battle or with some effects active, you can't spend 5 rounds buffing, roll initiative, and know you have say 5 rounds left. And nobody just walks around with anything but hour length buffs no matter how paranoid.

Also since it came up...

Rogues. Rogues need work because their shtick isn't that useful since gaming isn't Tomb of Horrors crawling (least that much) and anyone can find a trap. This is fine because seriously how do you not let people just bash open treasure chests or poke strange panels with long sticks? They need to advance from this though. I think to start they need Achaeologist's Luck (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/archaeologist) in an appropriate variation. They also could use something like Bardic Knowledge or Weapon training. Select a group of skills and those skills add say 1/2 class level to them.

In battle Sneak Attack needs to become a damage multiplier, think like an auto-crit though on its own modifier not the weapons. And maybe add the current dice to every attack as precision damage.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Moving Jump to Athletics is part re-balancing the skills - Acrobatics is still a good skill without it; climb kind of sucks. And partly because it was str-based in 3E, so that would again make it str-based. Also, then we can get Acrobatics off the list of those who have it only because it includes jump (like barbarians) and give jump back to the classes who lost it (like Ranger and Fighter). It just makes more sense to me. I guess you could have it be included in both, too.

The Perception thing is very important. The skill already handles spot and listen and any other sensory-based check that may come up, on top of Search. It is way too good, best skill in the game right now. Even w/o Search it still will be.
Searching actively is different from your passive perception. It actually kind of doesn't make sense right now that you use the skill to find hard to notice details a casual scan over would miss and it just so happens to be the exact same skill as that casual scan.
But yes, it is also to help rogues. Rogues can't afford a good wisdom score, and because Perception is so good everyone has it. Moving search to a different, less popular skill and making it int or dex based does a lot to help give the rogue some of his niche back.


1. Initiative: Initiative is changed to 1d20 + Dex + BAB. High level combatants develop exceptional reflexes and are always ready to act..

Great, the enemies with massive HD relative to CR get to act first! Brilliant!


2. Defensive Casting: Does not exist. You cast you provoke AoO. Combat Casting become +2 Concentration general bonus..

Sounds awesome till you realize trying to heal / breath of life an ally stuck in melee and in danger of death can now become impossibly hard. Why u no liek PCs surviving?


3. Standard Casting: Becomes 1 Round or at least 1 Full Round Action. Quicken casts at a standard action. Anything else not feather fall is banned or lengthened.

Again, an overly broad nerf with unforeseen consequences. To go back to the above example, moving to a hurt/fallen ally and healing them in the same turn is now impossible.


4. Iron Will (and its siblings): Scales with level. Something like Base: +2, 5th: +3, 10th: +4, 15th: +5..

Sure, whatever. I don't mind this, also don't think it fixes much or is necessary.


5. Summoning Spells: Summons one particular entity (or group) each time for each spell. The summon takes damage it takes time to heal, it "dies" it can't be summoned until the next day. Variations of Summon Meat Shield can still be done but like Protection from Whatever, as discrete separate spells. Arcane casters learn different variations separately. Divine casters and the Summoner class ability only have one per spell level but can change it when they gain a new spell level.

Sounds like an annoying amount of extra book keeping. Why not just nerf the summons themselves (especially the SM list, which is amazingly superior to SNA now) so that they can't overshadow PCs as much, rather than all this complexity? Nerfing the lists is a lot of upfront work, but then no additional work. Making your rules is a slight amount of up front work, and then more work every time the summon spells are used. I'd rather just have it all upfront and not during game play.


6. Time is an Abstract at GM Discretion: More of a guideline. Battles do not take six seconds a round, they take rounds how much this ends up being is GM discretion. Minute durations are more like "a scene" to lift from White Wolf. While you might use it for a challenge outside of battle or with some effects active, you can't spend 5 rounds buffing, roll initiative, and know you have say 5 rounds left. And nobody just walks around with anything but hour length buffs no matter how paranoid.

No. Just no. I can't even imagine the issues "time doesn't always flow the same" would cause, and I don't want to.


Rogues. Rogues need work because their shtick isn't that useful since gaming isn't Tomb of Horrors crawling (least that much) and anyone can find a trap. This is fine because seriously how do you not let people just bash open treasure chests or poke strange panels with long sticks? They need to advance from this though. I think to start they need Achaeologist's Luck (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/archaeologist) in an appropriate variation. They also could use something like Bardic Knowledge or Weapon training. Select a group of skills and those skills add say 1/2 class level to them.

In battle Sneak Attack needs to become a damage multiplier, think like an auto-crit though on its own modifier not the weapons. And maybe add the current dice to every attack as precision damage.

That's something, I guess. Rogue's base weapon and str bonus to damage tend to be crap, though, so multiplying them is unlikely to be very useful.

[AugustNights]

I would rather see Jump taken from Acrobatics and merged w/ Climb for Athletics; Perception stripped of Search; and Search moved somewhere... Either merged with Sleight of Hand as a dex-based skill or merged w/ Appraise (in which case it would be taken off wizard's skill list) as an int-based skill. The perception thing is especially important, IMO. It's just too good right now, and having search there and wis-based kinda dooms rogues to mediocrity at their supposed niche.

I did much the same with my current House Rule for D&D 3.5. I've opted to the jumping action two categories, Leaping & Springing. Leaping is a product of Athletics and has to do with covering distance. Springing is a product of Acrobatics and has to do with height, and flips and the like. General rule of thumb is that that Leaping is easier (lower DCs) than Springing.

Also, for Searching, I removed it from the Perception skill, and shuffled it into the Investigation skill... which isn't present in Pathfinder like I thought it was, must be a D20 Modern thing. But even so, I prefer active searching to be separate from the Perception skill.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Great, the enemies with massive HD relative to CR get to act first! Brilliant!

Are you suggesting it makes sense that the guy that trains to fight everyday doesn't develop quicker reflexes then the guy with his nose in a book everyday?

Monsters don't need to be balanced against PCs in the same way, they're there to die not be played as everything else. If this makes them too powerful then handle non-PCs differently.

Class level progression Initiative progression identical to BAB progression while just HD progression... maybe not at all even. Don't think people will mind terribly strangely always going first.




Sounds awesome till you realize trying to heal / breath of life an ally stuck in melee and in danger of death can now become impossibly hard. Why u no liek PCs surviving?



Again, an overly broad nerf with unforeseen consequences. To go back to the above example, moving to a hurt/fallen ally and healing them in the same turn is now impossible.

What's that reordering reality is hard to do in battle? That was the point of course. Magic is supposedly OPed but you don't want to nerf it? Then the word "balance" should never come up, only continual escalation when inevitably something rises above the rest and now everything else needs to get more super epic powah to da' max yo!

Also Reach Spell, heal them from over there. 11,000 gp would cover Heal (for clerics anyways) without even a feat investment. Also shoving potions in their mouth, or investment in feats that let you act when down but not dead for just such an occaison.

Besides casting provokes an AoO and divine casters can wear armor and maybe even make a concentration check. I think tanking an AoO would work for a potion.



Sounds like an annoying amount of extra book keeping. Why not just nerf the summons themselves (especially the SM list, which is amazingly superior to SNA now) so that they can't overshadow PCs as much, rather than all this complexity? Nerfing the lists is a lot of upfront work, but then no additional work. Making your rules is a slight amount of up front work, and then more work every time the summon spells are used. I'd rather just have it all upfront and not during game play.


So instead of say looking through the book each time you cast the spell, you already have established what you are summon each time.

Sounds to me like less book keeping.

EDIT: Actually your idea has merit from a publishing perspective. Its quite a bit of work though for a single GM to rebuild a several dozen monsters just for one potential class option, though one could maybe get away with swapping the lists upward and simply ditching the lower levels entirely

I also have an intense personal dislike of disposable minions in any form.


No. Just no. I can't even imagine the issues "time doesn't always flow the same" would cause, and I don't want to.

There are no issues.

The GM decides and wins.

Of course it destroys the tactical mindset of careful planning and buffing and paranoia, that's precisely the point.


That's something, I guess. Rogue's base weapon and str bonus to damage tend to be crap, though, so multiplying them is unlikely to be very useful.

You would multiply the whole of the damage not just the weapon base, including say the sneak dice they already get. On an increasing multiplier.

Say at level 9-10 area you'd have +5d6 to everything and a x3 to all damage on sneak. So from just that you'd have (5x3.5)x3= +52.5 average. Average on a d12 for that level would be 10x6.5= 65 HP. So thats 80% simply on the extra dice already there. The weapon is harder to determine and would be less but would you care to say between Agile (and similar methods), Piranha Strike (or Aldori with PA), "Archeologist's Luck", and maybe something like Vital Strike should add at somewhere 30+ to that.

Of course there's stuff with tons of HP and stuff with immunity but I'm not presuming I'm going to fix everything with one class feature and reach the mythical plane of perfect balance.

At high levels some options for adding conditions too would be appropriate.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Are you suggesting it makes sense that the guy that trains to fight everyday doesn't develop quicker reflexes then the guy with his nose in a book everyday?

Monsters don't need to be balanced against PCs in the same way, they're there to die not be played as everything else. If this makes them too powerful then handle non-PCs differently.

I intensely dislike monsters using different rules than PCs, I like as much internal consistency as possible.

Even between classes...NO. I do not expect the dex 13 fighter in full plate to react the fastest. I would expect the rogue to, followed by the monk. Yet both of those classes have medium BAB and so in your set up would be equal or inferior to the fighter at initiative.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I intensely dislike monsters using different rules than PCs, I like as much internal consistency as possible.

Even between classes...NO. I do not expect the dex 13 fighter in full plate to react the fastest. I would expect the rogue to, followed by the monk. Yet both of those classes have medium BAB and so in your set up would be equal or inferior to the fighter at initiative.

While mechanical consistency might be nice I think the divide between monsters and PCs is probably deeper into the system then anything between PCs. More philosophically I don't mind say a dragon being handled differently then a human.

Also for this example at Level 10 you have a Fighter Initiative with (10+1)=11 and a Rogue with (7+6?)=13. Monks got problems since Dex is there third/fourth stat but nothing new under the sun there. In rule like this adding ACP might not be inappropriate either. Though that's kinda weak considering Mithral and Armor Expert for all martials plus Armor Training for Fighters but could edge things one way or another.

I might make the philosophical point that Initiative is not about Dexerity, you don't need terribly fine control to act quickly. Much like how IRL strength effects speed since you can't increase mass well thus more power means more speed. That's a matter of opinion though.

We seem to have accord on the idea that both should be faster to act then the book worm though.

So the low hanging fruit would seem to be to do just by class period, fast slow medium progressions. Not entirely unreasonable in PF with its manageable base class numbers.

[Frosty]

I kinda like the idea of the initiative check being a Reflex Save check. I think that measures how quickly you can respond to threats.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I kinda like the idea of the initiative check being a Reflex Save check. I think that measures how quickly you can respond to threats.

There's a thought. Kinda like it.

[StreamOfTheSky]

At least if it was based on reflex save, then reflex would cease to be the save no one cares about.

I still don't think I'm in favor of changing initiative, though.

Also, going back to your concentration to cast defensively no longer existing... How do you feel about the Magus class? Because such a rule makes it completely unplayable. Along with any other gish build, but especially Magus.

[Soras Teva Gee]

At least if it was based on reflex save, then reflex would cease to be the save no one cares about.

I still don't think I'm in favor of changing initiative, though.

Also, going back to your concentration to cast defensively no longer existing... How do you feel about the Magus class? Because such a rule makes it completely unplayable. Along with any other gish build, but especially Magus.

Depends on what you want to do. These are all quick and dirty ideas not comprehensive addressing of every possible problem.

If you want to scale back casting with a basic rule, then make it harder to cast. As long as casting has better action economy, easy usablity, greater power, and greater versatility its simply going to sooner or later going to win. Attacking the action economy and ease of usability is your biggest bang for the buck because it doesn't matter what a spell does if you can't get it off.

Otherwise you either go through every spell systematically and decide if it needs a nerf or not. Or you systematically go through every class and escalate it to match the increased power of casting.

The first is doable in theory and PF did go through a lot, Solid Fog and Glitterdust are much more reasonable now for example. Stoneskin well at 250 a pop for something you really want all the time should give people pause. Etc. Almost inevitably something will be missed, some other book with a different team won't think it all out, or the change in the metagame will lead to people figuring something else that's new out.

The second well, same problem writ even large since you can always say "the GM will ban Teleport if its disruptive" which is harder for entire class builds. Most of the "solutions" on this end I've seen basically end up sooner or later giving everyone the same mechanical structure. Make sure everyone is super... then no one is. That's the "trap" of escalating everything it just creates a new baseline and all your improvements tend to boil out. Maybe Fighters are OPed now because of X feat and attack style. Pathfinder's whole existence is largely in reaction to that kind of impulse.

Now to get back to your question I bring this all up to shape what you choose to do for your game (and maybe what's even possible without writing a new game) and the understanding that ANY choice will have consequences, that you may not forsee.

Rather then worry about finding the (ahem) magic bullet my thinking is well, what can you do to have the most impact for the minimum amount of change. Again to me and for casting, that's attack what it all shares because that's its weakpoint. Ergo your spells mean nothing when you don't get them off.

Now to finally get to answering your question you go and consider some of the consequences. Is the Gish still playable? How do you want the Gish to be played at all and if so is it worth all the other stuff? Maybe you say sorry Gish you will have to hang back first and buff for a few rounds. Or keep distant then hold a charge and wade in for the meta-magicked Shocking Grasp of Doom every couple of rounds, use Spring Attack maybe. Is there still something viable considering (hopefully) the way you have change the rest of the game.

Answer is still no, or clearly to the point of outright built in dysfunctional features? Do you still want to allow it and not tell the player to go suck it? If so then is there a specific patch you can create for the gish instead? Such as making Defensive Casting a class feature for them.

And at some level no I'm not afraid to say "No" to a particular idea outright. I don't want to be a **** about it (see this very post of justificating mumbling) but I can say it.

Ultimately an "anything goes" game is only one particular type of game, its just not appropriate to try and cater to every possibility at once. Someone wants to play a socialite vampire sex god they probably will have better luck with a Ventrue in VtM then my Kingmaker PF campaign even if I've advanced the levels or they found some template classes in a book they want to convert. Far flung example but I do apply it too smaller cases too. Do I want my martial characters to be more like Aragorn, or more like Kratos? Do I want my wizards to be Raistlin killing the gods or Raistlin being a flashlight with some occasional tricks to smooth over a rough patch for the party. Or something in between.

Your fix follows your priorities.

[SSGoW]

Totally didn't read everything but my houserule for size is...

Have three catagories for sizes.. Small, Medium, Large. That's it. Sure your dragon may be 110 ft long and 90ft high but he is still large.

Large gives you...

+4 Size Bonus to Str based Maneuvers
-4 Size Penalty to Dex based Maneuvers

Medium
+0 Size bonus to Str based Maneuvers
-0 Size penalty to Dex based Maneuvers

Small
-4 Size Penalty to Str based Maneuver
+4 Size Bonus to Dex based Maneuvers

Annnd that's it. No penalty or bonuses to attacks or AC. No super bonuses that shut down PCs who want to bullrush or trip. Multileg trip/bullrush bonus is a flat +2.

Larger/smaller weapons/armors are still used but this simplifies a ton of stuff and keeps the fun going.

[TheIronGolem]

On the subject of maneuvers:


- Consolidate the maneuvers. Seriously, there's too damn many. IMO, Steal shouldn't even be a maneuver, roll it into Sleight of Hand, use rules similar to the feinting rules of Bluff for stealing in combat. Combine Drag with Bull Rush. Combine Reposition with Trip. Combine Dirty Trick with Disarm. That way feats or bonuses can apply to the pair of them. I especially don't know why drag needed its own maneuver when it's so ridiculously similar to bull rush...
I would prefer to see Bull Rush, Drag, and Reposition combined, as they're all just variations on "make the guy move N squares".

Making Steal a pseudo-maneuver would just be repeating the same mistake Paizo made when they did that with Feint. Just fold Steal back into Disarm, and make a feat or something that lets you substitute Sleight of Hand ranks for BAB when making Disarm checks. Similarly, make Feint a real maneuver using BAB, with a feat or whatever that lets you use Bluff/CHA in place of BAB/STR for feint checks. Because while a plucky rogue should be able to pull off feints using sheer chutzpah, a Big Dumb Fighter who can't tell a believable lie to save his life should still be able to feint with his skill at armed combat.

Keep Dirty Trick as it is, though. Dirty Trick is awesome as a catch-all for consistently handling ideas that don't fit neatly into any other maneuver. For example, I recently had a player who, having already tripped an opponent, wanted to pin the guy to the ground with his weapon; a Dirty Trick to inflict the "entangled" condition did nicely for that. I could see renaming it so that it doesn't come off as Something Good Guys Just Don't Do[tm], but otherwise leave it alone.

Along those same lines, fold Agile Maneuvers into Weapon Finesse, and make a Weapon Finesse variant for every non-STR ability. In fact, I'd be tempted to remove the feat requirement and just nick the "Key Offensive/Defensive Modifiers" concept from Legend, though it would take some tweaking to fit it into d20-style multiclassing (maybe just determine it by favored class).

I do agree with collapsing the Improve/Greater maneuver feats, and with feats to allow dealing damage along with a maneuver. I would also like to see "maneuver combo" feats that let you perform two maneuvers at once , though perhaps not with the option of dealing damage as well. For example, a bandit comes at you with a knife, you grab his arm and bend it behind his back until he's forced to drop the knife - that's a grapple/disarm combo.

[Reverent-One]

Change Tumble DC to 10 + enemy's BAB + enemy's Dex rather than using their entire CMD.

Turn feat chains into scaling feats, though this would require some individual work selecting which ones get grouped into which other ones. General rule would be any feat called Improved/Greater X gets merged into their prereqs of the same name.

EDIT: Oh, any class that's not an Int based caster with 2 skill points a level gets upgraded to 4.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I hate PF's exponential size bonuses that go from hardly noticeable to big gains at the extremes. It is currently +/- 0/1/2/4/8. I would just halve the 3E values to get a more even distribution of +/- 0/2/4/6/8.


I would prefer to see Bull Rush, Drag, and Reposition combined, as they're all just variations on "make the guy move N squares".

That could work too, though currently reposition is tied to expertise and Int 13, so I thought it'd be easier to bridge it to Trip.


Making Steal a pseudo-maneuver would just be repeating the same mistake Paizo made when they did that with Feint. Just fold Steal back into Disarm, and make a feat or something that lets you substitute Sleight of Hand ranks for BAB when making Disarm checks. Similarly, make Feint a real maneuver using BAB, with a feat or whatever that lets you use Bluff/CHA in place of BAB/STR for feint checks. Because while a plucky rogue should be able to pull off feints using sheer chutzpah, a Big Dumb Fighter who can't tell a believable lie to save his life should still be able to feint with his skill at armed combat.

No. If a Fighter wants to feint, he can just take the Bluff skill. Rogues should be the best at feinting and stealing, making it tied to BAB and/or a combat maneuver ensures they will suck at it. Feint is done right, it even lets the defender use BAB in place of bluff ranks so the fighter guy isn't so easily fooled. Steal should work like that, with Sleight of Hand vs. Perception, with the option to replace BAB for ranks.


Keep Dirty Trick as it is, though. Dirty Trick is awesome as a catch-all for consistently handling ideas that don't fit neatly into any other maneuver. For example, I recently had a player who, having already tripped an opponent, wanted to pin the guy to the ground with his weapon; a Dirty Trick to inflict the "entangled" condition did nicely for that. I could see renaming it so that it doesn't come off as Something Good Guys Just Don't Do[tm], but otherwise leave it alone.

If you say so, Dirty Trick to me looks really weak and not worth the action exchange (your standard for maybe their move) until you have Greater Dirty Trick. If we're keeping dirty trick separate and making Steal a skill check, we should probably merge Reposition with Disarm, then. Because Disarm could use the love, and those two maneuvers also make sense together.


Along those same lines, fold Agile Maneuvers into Weapon Finesse, and make a Weapon Finesse variant for every non-STR ability. In fact, I'd be tempted to remove the feat requirement and just nick the "Key Offensive/Defensive Modifiers" concept from Legend, though it would take some tweaking to fit it into d20-style multiclassing (maybe just determine it by favored class).

Agreed! I actually included "weapon finesse isn't a feat, it just *is*," in my rogue thread. I did forget all about Agile Maneuvers. It's quite forgettable. But yes, that feat needs to die.

[TuggyNE]

While mechanical consistency might be nice I think the divide between monsters and PCs is probably deeper into the system then anything between PCs. More philosophically I don't mind say a dragon being handled differently then a human.

Also for this example at Level 10 you have a Fighter Initiative with (10+1)=11 and a Rogue with (7+6?)=13. Monks got problems since Dex is there third/fourth stat but nothing new under the sun there. In rule like this adding ACP might not be inappropriate either. Though that's kinda weak considering Mithral and Armor Expert for all martials plus Armor Training for Fighters but could edge things one way or another.

I might make the philosophical point that Initiative is not about Dexerity, you don't need terribly fine control to act quickly. Much like how IRL strength effects speed since you can't increase mass well thus more power means more speed. That's a matter of opinion though.

Making it possible to fall off the initiative d20 is not a good idea, no matter how good your motives. For example, an elder air elemental, which is currently at (or near) the high end of Init modifiers at +15, hits +31 when BAB is put in. PC Init mods normally go from around -2 to around +12 at level 11; with these changes, they go from around +3 to around +23. The present system ensures that there is at least some chance of even the slowest PC going before the air elemental; your system guarantees that all but the fastest have little or no chance to catch up. Of course, if you don't include BAB for monsters (an illogical and bizarre decision), then you have another problem; the elder earth elemental (-1 Init), at the same CR, has no chance to beat the fastest PCs.

Taking a look at it from a different angle, let's compare PCs of different sorts (including the possibility of Improved Initiative in all cases).
{table=head]|THF Fighter|Archer Ranger|Finesse Rogue|Str Rogue|Ray Wizard|Other Wizard|Melee Cleric|Melee Druid
Before|-2 – +5|+6 – +12|+6 – +12|+0 – +8|+3 – +9|-2 – +7|-1 – +7|+0 – +14
After|+9 – +16|+17 – +23|+14 – +20|+8 – +16|+8 – +14|+3 – +12|+7 – +15|+8 – +22
With ACP|+3 – +13|+16 – +23|+13 – +20|+6 – +16|+8 – +14|+3 – +12|+1 – +12|+2 – +22[/table]

That's a pretty broad spread, and there's some curious results in there; in particular, adding ACP means there's quite a good chance the Wizard will catch right back up to the Fighter, Cleric, or even Str Rogue. Not that that's impossible anyway. Also, Wild Shape means the Druid can get some impressive Dex modifiers if they really push into it. (The inclusion of ACP gives them a pretty ridiculous spread of plausible Init mods.)

[Reverent-One]

Regarding Weapon Finesse, I prefer the idea to allow anyone with Proficiency in a Finesse-able weapon to use Dex for attacks without a feat. Not sure what WF should do in that case though, perhaps let you finesse the other weapons, perhaps a damage boost with the normal Finesse-able ones, either way mixing in Agile Maneuvers as well would be a good choice.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Making it possible to fall off the initiative d20 is not a good idea, no matter how good your motives. For example, an elder air elemental, which is currently at (or near) the high end of Init modifiers at +15, hits +31 when BAB is put in. PC Init mods normally go from around -2 to around +12 at level 11; with these changes, they go from around +3 to around +23. The present system ensures that there is at least some chance of even the slowest PC going before the air elemental; your system guarantees that all but the fastest have little or no chance to catch up. Of course, if you don't include BAB for monsters (an illogical and bizarre decision), then you have another problem; the elder earth elemental (-1 Init), at the same CR, has no chance to beat the fastest PCs.

I'm not seeing what nessecarily makes that a bad thing one way or the other there. At least this example its slam damage averages 18 or 36 if it full attacks, is that so much a difference for the round it dies in? Also if the not using BAB for monsters wouldn't that be leaving the mods were they are at present with just Dex, so I'm not precisely sure where that -1 came from. It would still have the +15 right in the middle of your ranges.

The reasoning aside from the point about dissonances in BABs for CRs in monsters would be something along the lines that monsters are well monsters, they may be supernaturally whatever but if they don't train themselves all that much or they'd have PC classes.


That's a pretty broad spread, and there's some curious results in there; in particular, adding ACP means there's quite a good chance the Wizard will catch right back up to the Fighter, Cleric, or even Str Rogue. Not that that's impossible anyway. Also, Wild Shape means the Druid can get some impressive Dex modifiers if they really push into it. (The inclusion of ACP gives them a pretty ridiculous spread of plausible Init mods.)

I find myself kinda liking the after no ACP spread, well except Druids but in a minute on them. Though you should add one to the THF range, a 14 is not implausible since it provides them several benefits.

Druids are the outlier but I'm presuming you are including Wild Shape? Of course Dex bonuses are found only on Air and Fire elementals and small (and under) beasts. While only the Air Elemental gives both a Str and Dex at +4 and +6 for Elemental Body IV.

That's something sure, but I tend to think of Druid's and Wild Shape with an emphasis on strength and properties like pounce not available to the elemental forms.

[TheIronGolem]

That could work too, though currently reposition is tied to expertise and Int 13, so I thought it'd be easier to bridge it to Trip.
Which leads me to this: Drop that stupid damn INT 13 requirement from Combat Expertise. In fact, get rid of the Combat Expertise feat entirely and just make "fighting defensively" work the way Combat Expertise works now. Seriously, screw Combat Expertise and the unnecessary-feat-tax-horse it rode in on.


No. If a Fighter wants to feint, he can just take the Bluff skill.
Why should he need to? Feinting is a function of your skill in swordplay (mace-, fist-, whatever-play), bluffing is a function of your social skills. The connection between these things is too tenuous to justify making that the default way of handling the feint maneuver.


Rogues should be the best at feinting and stealing
Yes, but not at the expense of internal consistency..


making it tied to BAB and/or a combat maneuver ensures they will suck at it.

Hence the option for them to use skill ranks in place of BAB for these maneuvers through a feat or class feature. It underscores the rogue class's theme of unconventional combat, accomplishing through guile what the fighter does through martial prowess.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it more, ditch the mechanic of "swap skill ranks for BAB or vice versa", because that makes for more fiddly bookkeeping, like the monk's weird "full BAB but only for flurry" feature. Instead, simply give the the rogue the ability to substitute a skill check in place of a CMB check for combat maneuvers, and furthermore to have those checks gain the benefits of their corresponding Improved [Maneuver] feats.

Rough draft for that class feature to better explain myself:

Guileful Maneuvers (Ex): Your unorthodox combat techniques allow you to accomplish through trickery and guile what other warriors accomplish through brute force. When performing a combat maneuver, instead of making an attack roll and adding your CMB, you may choose to make a skill check, using the skill appropriate to the maneuver being attempted. At the discretion of the GM, you may be able to use a skill other than the one listed, depending on how exactly you intend to perform the maneuver. You still count as performing the combat maneuver in question, and can therefore benefit from feats and abilities that affect use of the maneuver.

Feint, Dirty Trick, Reposition: Bluff
Disarm, Grapple: Sleight of Hand
Reposition, Overrun, Trip: Acrobatics
Sunder: Disable Device

Bear in mind that the above list assumes my suggested combinations of maneuvers are in place, so Steal is included in Disarm, etc. And exactly what skills are appropriate is certainly debatable.


Feint is done right, it even lets the defender use BAB in place of bluff ranks so the fighter guy isn't so easily fooled.

Sure, but if you're accepting that the fighter should be able to identify an enemy feint by virtue of his martial training, it stands to reason that this same training should enable him to perform those same feints. In fact, he can recognize a feint specifically because he himself knows how to feint.

Of course the rogue should be able to do this too despite not being as capable a warrior, but that's why I'm proposing Guileful Maneuvers.


Steal should work like that, with Sleight of Hand vs. Perception, with the option to replace BAB for ranks.

Remember that the Steal maneuver (as opposed to the pickpocketing function of SoH) isn't about pocketing the other guy's stuff while he's not looking, but just forcibly grabbing it away from him. Picture a fighter grabbing the wizard's amulet and yanking it up over his head and away; that's a Steal. Which, you'll notice, is so close to Disarm that it's not worth having a separate maneuver (hence I think they should be combined). When the rogue does this, he can either do it openly (using Guileful Maneuvers to perform a Disarm) or be all sneaky so that the wizard doesn't know what happened until he tries to use his amulet (using a bog-standard Sleight of Hand check).


If you say so, Dirty Trick to me looks really weak and not worth the action exchange (your standard for maybe their move) until you have Greater Dirty Trick.

Sure, but remember that we're already in agreement about combining Improved Whatever and Greater Whatever, so even without other changes we're already making it easier to make Dirty Tricks action-economical. Besides, a Dirty Trick can pay off in other ways (like blinding a guy with Improved Uncanny Dodge so your rogue buddy can get in a Sneak Attack despite being unable to flank). In any event, it's still a great idea to have a "do something not explicitly mentioned by the rules" maneuver.

[StreamOfTheSky]

So your solution is to shackle even *more* skill checks to the completely broken CMD scores of enemies?

No thanks... No skill should have to oppose CMD, it's clearly at a huge disadvantage even if the skill user pays for max ranks and the CMD guy does nothing other than level up and be strong and big.

[TuggyNE]

I'm not seeing what nessecarily makes that a bad thing one way or the other there. At least this example its slam damage averages 18 or 36 if it full attacks, is that so much a difference for the round it dies in? Also if the not using BAB for monsters wouldn't that be leaving the mods were they are at present with just Dex, so I'm not precisely sure where that -1 came from. It would still have the +15 right in the middle of your ranges.

Earth elemental, not air elemental.


The reasoning aside from the point about dissonances in BABs for CRs in monsters would be something along the lines that monsters are well monsters, they may be supernaturally whatever but if they don't train themselves all that much or they'd have PC classes.

That justification is maybe sufficient after the fact for a decision already made, but it's not really enough to warrant the change on its own. It's basically just a handwave.


Druids are the outlier but I'm presuming you are including Wild Shape? Of course Dex bonuses are found only on Air and Fire elementals and small (and under) beasts. While only the Air Elemental gives both a Str and Dex at +4 and +6 for Elemental Body IV.

That's something sure, but I tend to think of Druid's and Wild Shape with an emphasis on strength and properties like pounce not available to the elemental forms.

I was figuring on the Small Magical Beast shape, for +6 size.

Most of the time, a druid probably wouldn't be in such a form, unless they were planning on either switching out after winning initiative (not a good plan with a mere four uses a day) or sniping from a distance (which belies the melee designation). So that could have been labeled better.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Earth elemental, not air elemental.

My mistake


That justification is maybe sufficient after the fact for a decision already made, but it's not really enough to warrant the change on its own. It's basically just a handwave.

Oh its entirely a handwave done after the fact. Lets not be dishonest here. It might bother me if I thought the game had more similarity to reality then it does to say... Chess.

The core point being to nerf casters and then handle the implications of having done so as needed.

I'm simply of the opinion that monsters and PCs are sufficiently removed in construction that implications for monster builds should be of lower priority. And I'm no doubt shaped by having had a few GMs over the years that just had monsters go after (excepting ambushes where they went first) the PCs simply because it was simpler for them. And its modestly common in Pbp format since people aren't all online at the same time.

So I find working on interparty matters just a higher priority.


I was figuring on the Small Magical Beast shape, for +6 size.

Most of the time, a druid probably wouldn't be in such a form, unless they were planning on either switching out after winning initiative (not a good plan with a mere four uses a day) or sniping from a distance (which belies the melee designation). So that could have been labeled better.

That would do it too though carries its own downsides as noted.

And yeah even though its got a long duration spamming Wild Shape for merely support use in battle seems a bit of a resource waste. And changing shape at a standard action would seem to cancel out some the best advantages of winning initiative.

Best use would seem to be as a defensive platform for casting from. But the need for a stat base with shape shifting takes some of the bite out of that.

Pathfinder Druids: yeah you have to pick what you want to be a major badass at now. Not "all of the above"

[Fedorchik]

So many answers!
As I said in my first post, this thread is supposed to be main thread for a series of threads about houserules for Pathfinder. And not for arguments about specific topics :smallwink: Please wait for specific threads to let the dogs of flame out!
Let's start with something 'easy'. How about we try to fix Barbarian?

[Frosty]

I want more rounds of rage, and for the duration of the Fatigue post-rage to be proportional to how many rounds were spent in the rage. Rage-shuffling can be useful, and should not require shenanigans to get immunity to fatigue in order to happen.

[Fedorchik]

I want more rounds of rage, and for the duration of the Fatigue post-rage to be proportional to how many rounds were spent in the rage. Rage-shuffling can be useful, and should not require shenanigans to get immunity to fatigue in order to happen.
Not so fast, Dashie. Here's a thread for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15320833).

[Larkas]

Nice thread! The guidebook I'm organizing was supposed to spawn exactly this kind of discussion, so if it did inspire you in any way, I'm just glad. :smallsmile:


I would rather see Jump taken from Acrobatics and merged w/ Climb for Athletics; Perception stripped of Search; and Search moved somewhere... Either merged with Sleight of Hand as a dex-based skill or merged w/ Appraise (in which case it would be taken off wizard's skill list) as an int-based skill. The perception thing is especially important, IMO. It's just too good right now, and having search there and wis-based kinda dooms rogues to mediocrity at their supposed niche.

Great ideas all around. This is how I'd do it: Acrobatics-Jump; Jump+Climb=Acrobatics; Perception-Search; Search+Appraise=Investigation. I'd have a hard time pulling Investigation from the wizard's skill list, however, as that's pretty integral to their flavor, I think.


- Combine Improved and Greater maneuver feats into a single feat that gives +4 bonus and the other benefits of each, with the pre-reqs of the Improved feat. 3E had no "greater" feats - you just got the full benefit w/ one feat (and its inevitable power attack, expertise, or imp. unarmed required).

That is pretty much a given. Pathfinder did introduce some new stuff in some of the "Greater" feats (from the guidebook, I can pull Bull Rush, Disarm, Overrun and Sunder), though it doesn't make sense for that to spawn extra feats. Just fold everything into the "Improved" feat.


- Grapple can replace any attack, including AoOs. You do NOT have to "maintain" the check each round, if you're content to just hold them till they break free. Each successful grapple check deals unarmed damage to the target (unless you don't want it to). It takes TWO checks to go from pinned to free - one to get out of pinned, one to get out of grapple. If you are pinning someone, you can prevent them from speaking. Foes that are grappling lose dex to AC against anyone other than the foes they're grappling.
ALL of the above was how it worked in 3E. Grapple got nerfed super hard in PF. Honestly, I probably forgot some things.

Completely agree.


- Bull rushing someone causes him to provoke AoOs, even if you have no BR feats. As in 3E.

Now this is something I wouldn't bother with. Bull rush has been made much better in some aspects in Pathfinder: without feats, it only provokes AoOs from the target; you don't need to enter the target's square if you don't want to move with it (which means that you can open some crucial distance in between); and you can extend the bull rush attempt to all targets in a path. I wouldn't mind having the necessity to have a feat to make the target provoke AoOs with this in mind (i.e.: one feat, singular).


- Having more than 2 legs never gives more than +4 vs. trip, as in 3E. Flyers are NOT auto-immune to trip and you can use the 3E Rules of the Game rules for stalling fliers with trip.

These are very important. (a) Say that superbly stable creatures gain +4 to CMD against Overrun and Trip and be done with that, like it was the case with 3.5. (b) THIS. So much THIS. Trip is practically useless past a certain level in Pathfinder. This brings back the functionality. I'd go even farther than the Rules of the Game rules, saying that you can trip creatures flying using supernatural means.


- Let people attempt maneuvers against foes of any size. If you have the check high enough to have a chance, you should be allowed to try!

Couldn't agree more. If you're awesome enough to bull rush a great wyrm, all the power to you!


- Make bull rush add +5 ft moved per 3 you win by, or something. CMD is stupidly high, using the old 3E rule of 5 ft per 5 is just too punishing.

I'm not too sure about the exact bonus, but you're on the right track here.


- Consolidate the maneuvers. Seriously, there's too damn many. IMO, Steal shouldn't even be a maneuver, roll it into Sleight of Hand, use rules similar to the feinting rules of Bluff for stealing in combat. Combine Drag with Bull Rush. Combine Reposition with Trip. Combine Dirty Trick with Disarm. That way feats or bonuses can apply to the pair of them. I especially don't know why drag needed its own maneuver when it's so ridiculously similar to bull rush...

I don't have that much familiarity with the new maneuvers to make an informed opinion about this. At first glance, it seems like it adds options, and with condensing "Improved" and "Greater" feats under a single feat, I don't see the necessity to condense the maneuvers themselves. But like I said, I don't know them much, if too similar it might make sense.


- Make available feats to perform a maneuver on top of attacking for damage. PF has the [name] Strike feats, but basing it on crits is lame and random. Eidolons are cool for maneuvers specifically because they get cheap evolutions to tag their regular attack routine with things like Grab, Pull, Push, and Trip. If it's balanced for a caster's class feature, why is it such a no-no for actual martial characters to do it?!

Cool idea. I'd probably make a single feat for all maneuvers (i.e.: when you succeed on a maneuver check, you may deal damage equal to your melee damage on the target). It would probably need some fine tuning, however.

EDIT: EEEP! I left this tab open for too long, didn't notice the other responses until now. Sorry, OP!

[TheIronGolem]

So your solution is to shackle even *more* skill checks to the completely broken CMD scores of enemies?

No thanks... No skill should have to oppose CMD, it's clearly at a huge disadvantage even if the skill user pays for max ranks and the CMD guy does nothing other than level up and be strong and big.

If your objection to using skill checks to perform maneuvers is on the basis that CMD scores are broken, then surely the solution is to fix the CMD formula, which you presumably would want to do anyway for the purpose of fixing "regular" maneuver use.

[Soras Teva Gee]

If your objection to using skill checks to perform maneuvers is on the basis that CMD scores are broken, then surely the solution is to fix the CMD formula, which you presumably would want to do anyway for the purpose of fixing "regular" maneuver use.

Of course CMD is probably a fair bit of "its not a bug its a feature" because they don't actually want you throwing dragons around the map or whatever. Ever.

[SSGoW]

Totally forgot about this but...A pal of mine is running a Pathfinder game and we have stripped out the current CMD/CMB rules. We are still working on it.

It has been replaced with a saving throw system. The gist of it is...

Trip is Str (or dex) versus reflex.

Fighter: I trip the goblin "DC 15" (10 + Str (3) + Feat Bonus (2))

Goblin: Reflex save (14)

DM: You trip the goblin.

Can it be broken? Sure but this simplifies so much.

Grapple checks are now fortitude saves (maybe reflex?) . 1 Fail = Grappled, 2 Failed = Pinned, 3 Failed = Helpless (special kind of helpless?).

Free action to maintain and same action as it currently takes to initiate?

Basic Idea: The fighter performs a grapple perfectly every time but the enemy reacting may or may not react correctly.

[NinjaInTheRye]

The most powerful/versatile spells need to be seriously nerfed or removed. This includes, but is not limited to, things like the the Planar Binding line, Gate, Simulacrum, Wish, Miracle, ect ...

Dazing Spell metamagic needs a serious nerf, I'd suggest at least limiting the time dazed to one round.

[SSGoW]

The most powerful/versatile spells need to be seriously nerfed or removed. This includes, but is not limited to, things like the the Planar Binding line, Gate, Simulacrum, Wish, Miracle, ect ...

Dazing Spell metamagic needs a serious nerf, I'd suggest at least limiting the time dazed to one round.

Or one creature per casting... Magic Missile and a few other spells make this insane even with 1 round dazing...

[Soras Teva Gee]

The question to ask would be is a Dazing Magic Missile/Burning Hands/etc as good as Confusion or Black Tentacles of Forced Intrusion which for what should (ostensibly) be at a higher save and have longer lasting effects and can target more people? And how much better?

[avr]

If you're going to get serious with dazing metamagic you wouldn't be casting it at the whole +3 spell levels. Either you'd have or get one or more traits, or you'd get/make a 14K GP rod to negate the level increase entirely.

Also consider for example frost fall (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/frost-fall), remembering that dazed characters don't move and the dazing effect of the metamagic hits again each time the spell does damage. You'd have to make 2 saves in a row to escape. That really is more effective than confusion, tentacles or solid fog, and with one of the options I mentioned above it's cast out of a 2nd-3rd level slot.

It's a simple metamagic to fix. Make it one round of dazing rather than 1/spell level, and only off the initial casting not off damage over time. Done.

[Snowbluff]

ToB needs to be a thing again. Concentration needs to be a skill again as a result. Monk should be sold for scrap; Preferably we will see the pages containing it recycled as a new Initiator Class.


The question to ask would be is a Dazing Magic Missile/Burning Hands/etc as good as Confusion or Black Tentacles of Forced Intrusion which for what should (ostensibly) be at a higher save and have longer lasting effects and can target more people? And how much better?
Thanks to MM reducers, they are.

Also, you get points for posting something brief. Do it more often, please. :smallwink:

[Soras Teva Gee]

Thanks to MM reducers, they are.

Also, you get points for posting something brief. Do it more often, please. :smallwink:

Same question but Stinking Cloud and Blindness/Deafness instead.

And if yes that might be a better argument for not allowing MM reduction. Which is certainly the better trick, depending on how much the GM lets you get away with. Though I tend to think the best use for it is with a higher level base spell so its a pretty big decision to put your limited traits to.

I'm still tending to think its not a bad option but not so dramatically better you need to do anything about it.

[Snowbluff]

Same question but Stinking Cloud and Blindness/Deafness instead.

And if yes that might be a better argument for not allowing MM reduction. Which is certainly the better trick, depending on how much the GM lets you get away with. Though I tend to think the best use for it is with a higher level base spell so its a pretty big decision to put your limited traits to.

I'm still tending to think its not a bad option but not so dramatically better you need to do anything about it.

Yeah, it depends. The thing is that unlike Blindness (no one cares about Deafness. It's not as good.), Dazing spells will deal damage. That's just gravy.

[Fedorchik]

Since Combat Maneuvers thing is a major complain about pathfinder right now, I think I'll start thread on it.

UPD Here it is. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285839)

About moving this to Homebrew section:
This is probably a good idea, since it's all about houserules. I think I'll post my new threads there and ask mods to move barbarian thread there too. But I feel that this particular thread belongs here, don't know why though.

[Karoht]

@Initiative
Something that might make it more interesting as a stat.
Roll new initiative at the top of every round.
Why?
Wizard stacks a bunch of spells, gets a higher initiative than everyone else, always goes first. But if initiative was rolled every round, those spells would be of limited potence after the first.

So think of it like this. The Wizard burns some spells to have that first strike advantage. That advantage lasts him only that one round, rather than setting the pace for the entire rest of the combat.
After that first round, he's back to his own personal reflexes (unless he wants to burn more resources and such) VS that of the reflexes/reaction times of the enemies.

Combined with that BAB addition, it could really shake up initiative in some fun ways. Or be crazy annoying and slow down combat. Thoughts?

[Reverent-One]

Combined with that BAB addition, it could really shake up initiative in some fun ways. Or be crazy annoying and slow down combat. Thoughts?

My group has played with that rule for a time, then switched back to the standard way. Rolling every round not only slows down combat, but makes combat even swingier. Characters can end up going two turns back to back, casters casting one round casting time spells can end up finishing them immidately. Characters that have effectively two rounds go by in between their turns can be doomed without any chance to take action. It also screws with Holding/Readying actions.

[Scow2]

I'd seriously treat Jump as its own skill. There's merit in having Jump be part of both Acrobatics and Athletics, as both sets of skills might take advantage of it; however, since both have a claim of equal weight (i.e., an acrobat or gymnast will have an equal reason to master jumping as an athlete would, with the latter mastering the high and the long jump while the former would master the ability to hop down and somersault, for example), collapsing the skill into one of the two skill sets will do some disservice to leapers. By having it separate, both acrobats and athletes will have equal access to leaping skills.
Making it its own skill takes it away from both. A dedicated Gymnast would only need to take Acrobatics and Athletics to gain maximum maneuverability. The tumble feature of Acrobatics still lets acrobats fall gracefully.

Rogues should be able to add their INT score to Perception checks to search for traps, much as other classes get to add their own off-Mental-attribute to core skill function. (Such as an Inquisitor's WIS bonus to Knowledge checks to identify monsters)

Something I would NEVER want to see return to Pathfinder is the goddamn Blinking Flask Rogue. Grenadelike weapons are imprecise by nature, and should never benefit from precision damage

[avr]

Same question but Stinking Cloud and Blindness/Deafness instead.

And if yes that might be a better argument for not allowing MM reduction. Which is certainly the better trick, depending on how much the GM lets you get away with. Though I tend to think the best use for it is with a higher level base spell so its a pretty big decision to put your limited traits to.

I'm still tending to think its not a bad option but not so dramatically better you need to do anything about it.
Different uses. Stinking cloud blocks line of sight and makes melee attacks against those affected difficult, for good or ill, Blindness can target exactly one person and is a save or suck rather than a save or do nothing.

Banning MM reducers can be done. You're banning a couple of traits, a class of magic items, and soft-banning a few tricks which need MM reduction to be at all useful - ever seen someone use Maximise Spell with the full +3 level cost? Dazing spell is the effect which is out of line IMO, not all of metamagic.

You can certainly find other tricks to do with metamagic reduction via traits. It's difficult to argue whether this trick is out of line without knowing what you have in mind.

[Fedorchik]

I'm still here. Believe me!
Sorry for disappearing for this much time. Unfortunately, I've got a really busy lately and can't finish what I've started right now.
I'm still planning to do more, but it'll be a little later. Probably in July.

Meanwhile - would you care to make me a list of overpowered/underpowered spells? Here's thread for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15460993#post15460993).

[Logic]

Personally, I like initiative to be the following:

Base reflex+Dex+D20 (with Fighters getting the ONLY class bonus to initiative at every third level)

[Jandrem]

Easiest PF fix I can think of off the top of my head, is to just go back to 3.5e. But, that's not very helpful for anyone who actually wants to use new shiny books, so here are some actual suggestions.

I'd keep some of the more broad, simple changes PF made(increased PC hit die, more feats, core race changes, etc). Some of the spell fixes can stay, such as how they fixed Knock so that it doesn't immediately invalidate an entire character class(Rogue). Now, if only Trapfinding mattered, since Clerics can find traps with a 2nd level spell...

But all of the clunky, tacked-on little nudges to existing rules(this used to be a +2, now it's a +3! This used to be a +5, now it's a +4!) need to go. I've been playing PF since Beta, and I STILL get hung up on the little needless changes that do nothing but muddy up the game and slow things down.

Traits need to be seriously rebalanced against feats; many traits offer benefits greater than a feat, and become "no-brainers"; like the half-orc Trait that grants a bite attack. Seriously, why wouldn't anyone playing a half-orc take that? It's better than anything in the entire TWF feat tree, since your main attack doesn't suffer a penalty like TWF does to it. That's better than most feats.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Different uses. Stinking cloud blocks line of sight and makes melee attacks against those affected difficult, for good or ill, Blindness can target exactly one person and is a save or suck rather than a save or do nothing.

Something nauseated by stinking cloud can do nothing but a single move action (that the GM agrees doesn't require "attention") for 1d4+1 rounds after leaving the cloud and while in it so that's more like what 1d4+2 rounds.

A MM reduced Magic Missile target can daze a target to do nothing for only 1 round.

I respect stopping movement but I'll take the longer duration effect thank you.


Banning MM reducers can be done. You're banning a couple of traits, a class of magic items, and soft-banning a few tricks which need MM reduction to be at all useful - ever seen someone use Maximise Spell with the full +3 level cost? Dazing spell is the effect which is out of line IMO, not all of metamagic.

Yeah myself.

With blasting mages namely. Max damage is pretty much always a good thing for that idea and alternatives to getting it are simply not always availible.

Things can get truly crazy with it in rod form instead of course but if you don't have a Maxed spell is probably a better unmodified at that level.



Traits need to be seriously rebalanced against feats; many traits offer benefits greater than a feat, and become "no-brainers"; like the half-orc Trait that grants a bite attack. Seriously, why wouldn't anyone playing a half-orc take that? It's better than anything in the entire TWF feat tree, since your main attack doesn't suffer a penalty like TWF does to it. That's better than most feats.

Because they're not playing a natural attack build? :smallconfused:

While surprise surprise just like any list in the game not all choices are created equal your example here is rather odd...

Not that TWF is that strong but I do think its better then one -5 1d4+(.5Str) attack. I guess an extra attack is an extra attack but... meh.

I'd go with something else generally, Armor Expert for a martial type say or adding a needed skill, shore up a save, or heck some Initiative. Now you talking a Natural Weapon Ranger or Feral Combat Monk then yeah no brainer if you also want to be a half-orc.

Amusingly there are several ways to add bites to a half orc including a feat or just trading your orc ferocity. (Obviously the feat is for games without traits and alternate racial abilities. And divergent sources of course)