Pathfinder Small things I would change in Pathfinder [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder Small things I would change in Pathfinder

ProudGrognard

2014-05-17, 07:36 AM

Kudaku

2014-05-17, 07:42 AM

I like most of it, but your list has a crippling lack of Rogue fixes.

Sayt

2014-05-17, 07:51 AM

Not bad, this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DAa56igA6jy3e1Ky5tmzauBl3zjQC-fXs6WuX7zm43M) is the doc I have of the house rules I am planning for using when I start GMing again.

Hamste

2014-05-17, 07:52 AM

All seems like good ideas except a few. Make cleric and druid gain spell at the same progression as a sorcerer as well as the wizard. Also I dislike making healing it's own school, as it can't really stand by itself. However, switching it to necromancy makes more sense than conjuration and it makes conjuration's spell list just a tiny bit smaller.

Kurald Galain

2014-05-17, 07:52 AM

The barbarian 's rage hps, all but 10, are temporary and thus lost first.

Seriously. The most ridiculous PF rule ever is the fact that barbarians need to take a feat to avoid dying when their rage ends.

Prime32

2014-05-17, 07:54 AM

The monk gets a full BAB for maneuvers, simple weapons and monk weapons.But the monk already has full BAB, he just has a special ability that makes him increasingly worse at learning feats as he gains levels. :smalltongue:
(seriously there's no reason to restrict it by weapon - that's what weapon proficiencies are for)

The cleric loses his semi-paladin status and becomes a full caster with auras.Its what status? :smallconfused: It has a full 9 levels of spells, it's already the definition of a full caster.

A high level Pounce feat becomes available.Why high-level? Getting Pounce at level 1 just means *drumroll* you can make one attack as part of a charge.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-17, 08:04 AM

Snowbluff

2014-05-17, 08:08 AM

The skill list needs further consolidation, and the CC skill system needs to be reverted back to 3.5's. That should help the rogue a little.

The rogue and ninja should probably be merged.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-17, 08:23 AM

The skill list needs further consolidation, and the CC skill system needs to be reverted back to 3.5's. That should help the rogue a little.

The rogue and ninja should probably be merged.

Make the ki pool based on Int and you would have some fun.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-17, 08:28 AM

But the monk already has full BAB, he just has a special ability that makes him increasingly worse at learning feats as he gains levels. :smalltongue:
(seriously there's no reason to restrict it by weapon - that's what weapon proficiencies are for)
Its what status? :smallconfused: It has a full 9 levels of spells, it's already the definition of a full caster.
Why high-level? Getting Pounce at level 1 just means *drumroll* you can make one attack as part of a charge.

By the cleric thing, I meant that he loses the armor and weapon proficiencies and either goes the wizard way or becomes something like the Dragon Shaman: Auras and some spells.

As for the Pounce: You are right.
More generally, a high level ability that would allow all attacks as a standard action would be great. The fighter would have it first, say at 9th level and the rest melee classes would follow.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-17, 08:29 AM

I like most of it, but your list has a crippling lack of Rogue fixes.

I have never played a Rogue, so I do not know its problems.

Snowbluff

2014-05-17, 08:32 AM

Make the ki pool based on Int and you would have some fun.

OOOH! That's a good one.

Kurald Galain

2014-05-17, 08:44 AM

Why high-level? Getting Pounce at level 1 just means *drumroll* you can make one attack as part of a charge.
Natural attacks. It's not all that hard to have three of those at level 1.

I have never played a Rogue, so I do not know its problems.
The main issues are (1) the fact that everybody gets more and better skills dilutes the rogue's status as a skill monkey, and (2) certain rules changes in PF make it hard to deal sneak attack damage consistently. I think the easiest fix would be to give him a talent every level instead of every other, because talents are what make the rogue special, and then add a talent to make Tumble work better.

The same applies to the Ninja, with the added point that it needs more ki points. Seriously, half level + cha mod is way too little given how many of the ninja's abilities require ki.

Kudaku

2014-05-17, 08:55 AM

I have never played a Rogue, so I do not know its problems.

Hello players...

Look at your rogue. Now back (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/archetypes/paizo---alchemist-archetypes/vivisectionist) to me (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard). Now back at your rogue. Now back (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/archaeologist) to me (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/evangelist). Sadly, he isn't me. But if he stopped playing a 14 year old class and rolled a vivisectionist alchemist, he could pretend like he's me. Look down, back up, where are you? We Wind Walked to a boat with the vivisectionist your rogue could be like. What's in your hand, back at me. I have it, it's sneak attack dice, that thing you love. Look again, the sneak attack is now viable. Anything is possible when your man is a vivisectionist and not a rogue. I turned into a horse.

Kurald Galain

2014-05-17, 09:08 AM

The wizard gets the progression of the sorcerer. Many spells are nerfed. Alternatively, the wizard breaks into several classes, with very specific specializations a la summoner (this is actually something I really want to work on, but I have no time to do it). The warlock becomes the new sorcerer.

A simple way to split up the wizard is to force all wizards to be specialists (most of them are, anyway) and then make opposition schools actually matter. Back in 2E, there were two relevant rules for this. First, you can't use spells from your opposing schools at all, not even from a wand or scroll. And second, you don't get to pick what your opposing schools are; every specialization has two opposing schools pre-picked for you (you can easily fill this in with some nice worldbuilding fluff). Now since the two biggest and best schools are Conjuration and Transmutation, obviously these should be opposed schools of one another. This goes a long way in toning down the versatility of the wizard, and it even makes individual wizards more diverse (since they can't all pick the same Top Ten Spells Ever).

Interesting setting idea: the eight wizard schools all correspond to one alignment, like so:

Abjuration - lawful good
Conjuration - lawful neutral
Necromancy - lawful evil
Enchantment - neutral evil
Evocation - chaotic evil
Transmutation - chaotic neutral
Illusion - chaotic good
Divination - neutral good

And every specialist can't use the diametrically opposing school, and one to either side (or, if you still think wizards are too strong, both of those). A caster doesn't have to be the alignment of his school if he doesn't want to.

The Random NPC

2014-05-17, 09:32 AM

Change Power Attack so you can choose the level of penalty. You don't have to change it back to 3.5, but you need to be able to choose how wild of a swing you're making.

Gemini476

2014-05-17, 09:56 AM

I suggest having Pounce as a feat with a prerequisite of BAB+6, just giving the Monk Full BAB (and the ability to Flurry as a standard action), and moving the healing spells back to Necromancy.
Or, y'know, just make Full Attack a standard action. That would help everyone greatly and make combat a lot less static, I feel. People would actually move around rather than just waiting for the other guy to walk up to them and then standing still wailing at them.

For CMD, I dunno. The big problem is that BAB is linked to Hit Dice, and you can't change that without some major overhauls. I'm sure someone has a good idea for how to solve it, but man.
It needs solving, though.

For the Rogue, there's some things you should do: make Tumble not be vs. CMD, make Tumble not make you fall prone if you get hit, make flasks available for precision damage, give Blur back the ability to deny dex, and I dunno give 'em more talents and whatnot. Maybe the ability to just Take 20 on all skill checks somewhere down the line or something.
I don't know what you need to be a good skillmonkey in Pathfinder, but that's because there aren't any. Retroactive skill points and class skills means that a Wizard with 26 Int is as good at skillmonkeying as your 14 Int Rogue.

Kurald Galain

2014-05-17, 10:21 AM

For CMD, I dunno. The big problem is that BAB is linked to Hit Dice, and you can't change that without some major overhauls. I'm sure someone has a good idea for how to solve it, but man.
It needs solving, though.

Straightforward fix: have both CMB and CMD key off half BAB instead of full BAB.

grarrrg

2014-05-17, 10:32 AM

The skill list needs further consolidation, and the CC skill system needs to be reverted back to 3.5's. That should help the rogue a little.

I wouldn't do a full CC Skill reversion to 3.5...it was a bit on the wonky side.
The whole "max ranks is equal to your level+3 divided by 2" thing is overly complicated.

Maybe start with "Cross Class Skill Ranks cost 2 Skill Points" and "If a Skill is a Class Skill for any of your classes, it ALWAYS counts a Class Skill".

I suggest having Pounce as a feat with a prerequisite of BAB+6
As things stand now, the classes/archetypes that get Pounce (or 'effectively Pounce') get it at around level 10.
For the sake of not invalidating/rewriting those abilities, I'd say 'Pounce Feat' should come online at a similar level. Speaking of level, do we want the 3/4 Bab classes to have access to this at the same -level- or the same -Bab- as everyone else?

Two-Weapon fighting should get some kind of boost as well. Keep the first feat the same, but have 'Improved' be a scaling combined version of Imp and Greater? Maybe with some other bonus thrown in?
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
Requirements: DEX 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, Bab +6
You get an extra attack with your off-hand at -5 Bab. When you have Bab +11 you gain a third attack with your off-hand at -10 Bab, and reduce the penalties for Two-Weapon fighting by 1. When you have Bab +16 reduce the penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting by another 2.

Yes, a total reduction of 3. If you fight with a Light off-hand weapon, there would be no Two-Weapon penalty. If you choose to fight with a non-Light weapon, then the penalties would only be 1.

And yes, I believe that Two-Weapon fighting should still be 2 feats. This gives a low requirement way to pick up an extra attack early on, and a high requirement way to pile on the bonuses later.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-17, 10:56 AM

As things stand now, the classes/archetypes that get Pounce (or 'effectively Pounce') get it at around level 10.
For the sake of not invalidating/rewriting those abilities, I'd say 'Pounce Feat' should come online at a similar level. Speaking of level, do we want the 3/4 Bab classes to have access to this at the same -level- or the same -Bab- as everyone else?

See, the fact that Paizo made Pounce a 10+ level ability is pretty messed up.

Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that a person with full BAB could make a multiple attacks at the end of a charge? We have casters that bend time space and whatever else they want starting at level 1.

I'm not even talking about balance at this point, just wish the setting could make more sense. Casting spells is apparently easier than swinging a sword really fast after charging.

Really I think pounce shouldn't need to be a feat or a class ability. Pounce should just be part of the rules straight up.

Edit: A lion gets pounce at BAB +3, is the equivalent to this type of speed and ability really a PC of level 10+?

jjcrpntr

2014-05-17, 11:03 AM

grarrrg

2014-05-17, 11:22 AM

Yes that sword and board. I think it actually makes shields viable

Shields are already perfectly viable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347306-S-amp-B-fighter-TWF-fighter)...

jjcrpntr

2014-05-17, 11:25 AM

Shields are already perfectly viable (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347306-S-amp-B-fighter-TWF-fighter)...

poor wording on my part sorry. The class I wrote up has shields as one of the most important aspects of the class and the player gets bonuses and class abilities based around a shield.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-17, 02:16 PM

I like some of your list. I really like most of pathfinder. On the fighter rehaul thing. I've got a homebrewed class I'm working on (the "Knight") that I think would be fun. It's a class that's more dedicated to defense and sword and board. Yes that sword and board. I think it actually makes shields viable and one of my players read through it and practically begged me to finish it cause he wants to try it (he likes trying new stuff).

I understand where you are going with this. But for me, the fighter should be both more generic and more capable. Whereas other melee classes, should be able to be capable in one thing, melee -wise, the fighter should be good at most and best at several. This is why I gave him a better save mechanic, talents and feats aplenty.

Kraken

2014-05-17, 02:34 PM

Just give monks full BAB 100% of the time. It's simpler, and you're not going to run into any problems with it.

TheIronGolem

2014-05-17, 03:43 PM

Not really a "small" change, but I've been thinking about replacing weapon proficiencies with "fighting style proficiencies".

I haven't worked out the details, but my initial thoughts go something like this:

The list of weapon styles is as follows:

One-Handed Weapon
Two-Handed Weapon
Two Weapons
Weapon and Shield
Double Weapon (quarterstaff, etc)
Pole Weapon
Unarmed
Throwing Weapons
Bow
Crossbow
Firearm

Taking a class level gets you proficiency in X styles (X being determined by class), with more available as feats. So if you pick up a longsword and start fighting, that's One-Handed Weapon. Pick up a shield, you're doing Weapon and Shield. Drop the shield and add your other hand, now you're doing Two-Handed. And so on.

Fighting in a style you're not proficient with incurs no penalty (in keeping with Pathfinder's reward-don't-punish design ethic). Instead, fighting in a style you are proficient with grants you use of some feats that are normally considered "mandatory" when building a character the traditional way. For example, Two Weapons gets you the TWF, the ranged styles give you Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, Unarmed gets you Improved Unarmed Strike, etc. Additional appropriate feats would come online at higher levels, with prerequisites ignored. Maybe some other appropriate non-feat abilities as well, especially for weaker styles like One-Handed Weapon that need some shoring up.

Stone Heart

2014-05-17, 03:58 PM

I've heard a lot of people talking about the math not working on CMB/CMD but in my experience we have never had any problems using it. Could someone explain where the math breaks down?

Zanos

2014-05-17, 04:38 PM

Magic item creation goes a step back to ADD. Special formulas and regents are needed.

In 3.5 magic items were a necessary part of a characters power and this has not changed in PF. While the abundance of magic items may make it seem as though they are less special, they're built into the math used to build the game, and since this seems to be designed to make magic items more special, you may run into unintended consequences.

I think rarity of magic items is also a matter of taste, and will vary from campaign to campaign, so it might be better to leave it as is and make such rules on a case by case bias rather than baking it into the ruleset.

Prime32

2014-05-17, 04:44 PM

I've heard a lot of people talking about the math not working on CMB/CMD but in my experience we have never had any problems using it. Could someone explain where the math breaks down?Monster HD scales faster than the party's level, and the defender gets to add two ability modifiers rather than one.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-17, 06:43 PM

Monster HD scales faster than the party's level, and the defender gets to add two ability modifiers rather than one.

Fastest fix for this?

Fort and Reflex saves.

DC: 10 + 1/2 Level + Strength or Dexterity Modifier.

If the attacker is using Dex then the saving throw is a reflex save. If the attacker is using strength then the saving throw is a fortitude save.

I mean... The system is already in place, why not use it?

Edit: feats that Improve maneuvers improve the DC but in different increments.

Prime32

2014-05-17, 07:33 PM

Fastest fix for this?

Fort and Reflex saves.

DC: 10 + 1/2 Level + Strength or Dexterity Modifier.

If the attacker is using Dex then the saving throw is a reflex save. If the attacker is using strength then the saving throw is a fortitude save.

I mean... The system is already in place, why not use it?

Edit: feats that Improve maneuvers improve the DC but in different increments.Genius. Just add shield bonuses to the saving throw*, and grant a +2/-2 to the DC (or even +1/-1) for every size category in difference between the attacker and the target.

*Assuming you don't apply shield bonuses to saves in general.

stack

2014-05-17, 07:52 PM

Saves are how maneuvers work in Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). Haven't got to spend enough time trying it but it looks like it works.

That's were I always end up when I think about 'fixing' PF, I get through the first mental page of fixes and say "forget it, I'd be better off running Legend", since most of my fixes would make PF more like Legend anyway (strong feats, power attack/deadly aim are combat maneuvers instead of feats, balanced spells, etc).

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-17, 10:30 PM

Genius. Just add shield bonuses to the saving throw*, and grant a +2/-2 to the DC (or even +1/-1) for every size category in difference between the attacker and the target.

*Assuming you don't apply shield bonuses to saves in general.

Hmmm... For some reason it never occurred to me to apply shield bonus to saves. I mean... Hell I play 4e fighters with shields and you can get the shield to go toward defenses...

Why didn't I think of that for 3.P?

But I detest size bonus and penalties. Since the sizes are relative you could allow ability scores to matter much more than if there is a size difference. .My 30 strength Halfling should be able to easily bullrush the 15 Constitution dragon, even if that dragon is colossal. Talk about badassitude right there.

Size bonuses also hurt PCs since normally you stay medium or large and have no easy way of effectively being treated as bigger than large.

Besides, how many times have I seen a tiny creature such as a cat trip a human with ease? Plenty :p

ProudGrognard

2014-05-17, 11:22 PM

In 3.5 magic items were a necessary part of a characters power and this has not changed in PF. While the abundance of magic items may make it seem as though they are less special, they're built into the math used to build the game, and since this seems to be designed to make magic items more special, you may run into unintended consequences.

I think rarity of magic items is also a matter of taste, and will vary from campaign to campaign, so it might be better to leave it as is and make such rules on a case by case bias rather than baking it into the ruleset.

That is true, I think you have a point. I do believe that character/encounter power can be scaled but it is also a matter of taste.

Arbane

2014-05-18, 01:43 AM

The barbarian 's rage hps, all but 10, are temporary and thus lost first.

I like it, but it needs some way to avoid Stupid Rage Cycling Tricks.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-18, 02:20 AM

I like it, but it needs some way to avoid Stupid Rage Cycling Tricks.

Such as? Since all these HPs disappear with the end of rage, how could that work?

I also think that I would suggest all attack actions are now standard actions (and why not?), and that by +6 BAB, the second and the primary attack attack get a -2 (thus +4/+4 rather than +6/+1). I have seen this in some supplement and the math were really convincing. zAlso, that Cleave and all these feats get a massive rehaul.

Kurald Galain

2014-05-18, 03:31 AM

I like it, but it needs some way to avoid Stupid Rage Cycling Tricks.

I get that the barbarian as printed needs rage cycling to be effective, but if you're going to fix the barbarian you should also remove the loophole for rage cycling.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-18, 06:09 AM

I get tine barbarian as printed needs rage cycling to be effective, but if you're going to fix the barbarian you should also remove the loophole for rage cycling.

Remove the loophole by making rage a semi-constant effect. Or remove the loophole by making the loophole part of rage.

Make rage a constant effect while in battle. Essentially once your adrenaline starts pumping you can push yourself further and you focus on killing your enemies. Entering and exiting rage can still be a free action.

Needs some work but what ive been toying around with is while in rage you gain the following...

~+4 Strength or Dexterity and Charisma ( controlled rage from urban barbarian gives bonus to Dexterity... Also this bonus to charisma only effects hostile skill checks such as intimidate)(later levels these will increase to +6 and +8)
~Use of all rage powers (recreate rage powers to be awesome and work more than once per rage... Separate them into Su and Ex abilities still)
~THP equal to Con Score + Barbarian Level (these only are given 1/encounter, the barbarian must rest before he may gain THP from rage again)
~Immunity to ongoing mental control abilities (like PfE spell)
~Normal penalty for raging (loosing out on skills, no concentration, -2 AC, etc...)
~ Rage automatically ends if the Barbarian doesn't have a target to unleash their hate. Thus if a barbarian doesn't attack a hostile target each round then the rage ends and can't be activated till the beginning of the Barbarian's next turn.
~ Puny men would be fatigued after exerting themselves like a barbarian but the barbarian ignores fatigue and exhaustion.

A barbarian shouldn't have to tactically plan when to rage and when not to rage nor should their anger be something they run out of... A barbarian doesn't run out of hate or adrenaline like puny wussy men.

Will the barbarian be strong? Hell yeah. Will the barbarian be able to break the game? Depends on what rage powers people create I guess.

The fun in playing a barbarian (from experience and what I've been told) is raging and killing not from time management and being worried that rage itself will kill you. If you make rage powers always work in Rage they

Note: I hate how non-casters must always give up something or take a huge penalty to work with something. Want to deal more damage? Oh sorry you have to take a penalty to attack... You want to rage? Oh you might die and you have to be punished when you come out of rage (death or fatigued). Want to bullrush? Screw you the math doesn't work.

GreyBlack

2014-05-18, 07:09 AM

Heya all,

I have been thinking a lot about PF and it seems to me there are some changes, small and not so small, that would really improve the game, at least in the way I see it.. The focus here is on small-to-medium things. Getting rid of classes and the d20 is large, for example. But tweaking spells and feats... that is something different. So here are my thoughts, in random order:

Make all casters need two stats. One determines DC and the other bonus spells.
The wizard gets the progression of the sorcerer. Many spells are nerfed. Alternatively, the wizard breaks into several classes, with very specific specializations a la summoner (this is actually something I really want to work on, but I have no time to do it). The warlock becomes the new sorcerer.
The fighter and the sorcerer get 4 skill points. The fighter gets a major rehaul, something like this. (http://tinyurl.com/bfg95kf).
The barbarian 's rage hps, all but 10, are temporary and thus lost first.
The monk gets a full BAB for maneuvers, simple weapons and monk weapons. His AB is calculated by Dex and his damage by Wis.
The alchemist gets the infusion discovery for free. The time to craft alchemical items for him is calculated as if the prices were in silver. More alchemical items for damage are available.
Swim and climb get merged and become Athletics. Knowledge skills are rethought and new ones get introduced. Local becomes Streetwise. Crafting gets rehauled.
Healing becomes a school. The Heal skill becomes more powerful. The cleric loses his semi-paladin status and becomes a full caster with auras.
Magic item creation goes a step back to ADD. Special formulas and regents are needed.
Combat feats, like Improved Trip, Cleave etc get re-merged into one. A high level Pounce feat becomes available.

I am sure more things will come up, but this is my take. What do you think?

Something I've played with but never done is making charisma the start for all primary spellcasters, but it doesn't work well in practice. Since wizards are limited by their spellbook (a weakness many GMs forget to exploit and the primary reason I usually keep 2 spellbooks and one spell tattooed on my body whenever I'm a wizard), they lose all their power if you take away their book, whereas sorcerer keeps their power. Clerics are more MAD than wizards, so no reason for me to turn them into Favored Soul, especially since they still need charisma for channel. Sorcerers are inherently limited by their spell list choice, and if you kill a witch's familiar you ruin their spellcasting. Druids are hugely MAD, and need to choose between wild shape builds or spellcasting builds.

As to everything else, I'll post my thoughts when I am not posting from my phone.

avr

2014-05-18, 08:32 AM

On the subject of pounce, the fastest ways to get it in PF as written are (as far as I know)

Be a Synthesist Summoner. Level 1.
Be a Lion Shaman Druid. Wild Shape gets it at level 6.
Be a standard Druid for Wild Shape at level 8.
Using your casting rules a wizard or sorcerer, or a witch with the transformation patron at Level 8 can cast Beast Shape II if you don't adjust spell lists.
Lunar mystery Oracles can use the Form of the Beast revelation similarly to wildshape for pounce from level 9.

I'd think that a skilled fighter should be able to match this at a similar level to one of these.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-18, 10:02 AM

This really isn't a small change but...

I would have iterative attacks for manufactured weapons work a lot like natural attacks.

Same thing with two weapon fighting.

First Attack: Full BAB
Second (or more attacks): Full BAB - 5
Gain iterative attacks at the same BAB as normal.

Twf: Can make one additional offhand attack for each attack you normally have. Offhand damage isn't as high as regular.

Full Attacks are standard actions. Full attacks can be used at the end of a charge. Any maneuver may replace any attack.

Snowbluff

2014-05-18, 10:39 AM

That's not how those work in PF. In PF, all of your primary attacks are primary attacks.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-18, 11:56 AM

That's not how those work in PF. In PF, all of your primary attacks are primary attacks.

Make iterative attacks count as secondary. So at BAB 6, 11, 16, and 20 you get an additional secondary attack with your weapon. These secondary attacks are all at BAB - 5 like secondary natural attacks are.

Ravens_cry

2014-05-18, 12:08 PM

I'd change the Wall of Iron back so it can be used to make items. The restriction is silly and arbitrary. It's not like the iron is magical, it's an instantaneous spell. Even if it's got impurities that must be refined out or added to make it useful, it's still bloody freaking iron. I also liked the 3.5 Stone to Flesh spell for vegan undead creation. Oh, and this is a personal thing, but unintelligent undead take on the alignment of the person controlling them, and literally do nothing but exist when not told what to do, having an alignment of Neutral by default.

BlackDragonKing

2014-05-18, 02:21 PM

All right, some things I'd change...

-More feats scale by level. Weapon Focus and Dodge both increase by +1 every four levels the owner possesses, so a level 20 character has a +5 dodge bonus from that feat instead of a +1, and +5 to attack rolls with their Focus weapon instead of a +1 that doesn't really make or break high-level attacks. Vital Strike is a single feat that lets you roll 2 damage dice at BAB +6, 3 at BAB +11, and 4 at BAB +16. Iron Will, Great Fortitude, and Lightning Reflexes double their save bonus to +4 if the character is level 10 or higher.
-Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and Deadly Aim are not feats; any character with the appropriate scores can perform them normally. As such, Combat Expertise is not a prerequisite feat for anything.
-Finesse is a weapon quality, not a feat.
-Combat maneuvers are consolidated down; Improved and Greater Combat Maneuver now have CMB prerequisites instead of combat expertise and intelligence prerequisites and effect ALL maneuvers. The Quick Maneuver feats are left as they are to let a specialist mix their favored Maneuver into their attacks.
-Pounce is a combat feat available at mid-high levels.
-Characters with high strength scores can take a feat that lets them ignore size bonuses to CMD.
-Rogues gain a talent or advanced talent that lets them feint as a swift action.
-Monks can move up to half their fast movement speed and still utilize Flurry of Blows.

Arbane

2014-05-18, 02:28 PM

Note: I hate how non-casters must always give up something or take a huge penalty to work with something.

YES. That is an attitude that I hope D&D Next purges.

Zanos

2014-05-18, 03:06 PM

Such as? Since all these HPs disappear with the end of rage, how could that work?

I also think that I would suggest all attack actions are now standard actions (and why not?), and that by +6 BAB, the second and the primary attack attack get a -2 (thus +4/+4 rather than +6/+1). I have seen this in some supplement and the math were really convincing. zAlso, that Cleave and all these feats get a massive rehaul.
Rage Cycling in pathfinder is when a Barbarian finds a way to become immune to fatigue. Normally a Babarian is prevented from jumping in and out of rage as they will since a fatigued character can't enter rage. With fatigue immunity however the Barbarian can enter/exit rage repeatedly, since both are free actions, to refresh any of their rage powers that are limited to 1/rage or similar. Giving the barbarian temporary HP from rage makes rage cycling more problematic, as it essentially could give an rage cycling barbarian temporary HP every turn.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-18, 03:30 PM

Rage Cycling in pathfinder is when a Barbarian finds a way to become immune to fatigue. Normally a Babarian is prevented from jumping in and out of rage as they will since a fatigued character can't enter rage. With fatigue immunity however the Barbarian can enter/exit rage repeatedly, since both are free actions, to refresh any of their rage powers that are limited to 1/rage or similar. Giving the barbarian temporary HP from rage makes rage cycling more problematic, as it essentially could give an rage cycling barbarian temporary HP every turn.

I understand the problem. But I think it can be avoided with some precise wording. Such as saying that these hps refresh after the encounter. Or saying that the barbarian acquires a pool of hps that he can use to negate damage which refreshes after the encounter.

Or, if all else fails, saying that the barbarian cannot go to less than - 10 from losing rage hps.

JusticeZero

2014-05-18, 03:50 PM

Completely redesigning the T1 casters is pretty much the definition of a large change, which is the antonym of a "small change", regardless of how much they might need it.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-18, 04:26 PM

YES. That is an attitude that I hope D&D Next purges.

I think they are getting closer to this but I'm not sure the Dev team will actually embrace this idea.

Snowbluff

2014-05-18, 10:32 PM

Oh. I forgot to remove monks.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-18, 11:40 PM

Completely redesigning the T1 casters is pretty much the definition of a large change, which is the antonym of a "small change", regardless of how much they might need it.

That is actually true. But I think that, in the way I proposed it above, is the smallest of the large changes. Compared to say, magic as a skill, or classless magic.

upho

2014-05-23, 04:05 PM

Mostly good thoughts, I think. They would probably improve the game.

Many spells are nerfed. Alternatively, the wizard breaks into several classes, with very specific specializations a la summoner (this is actually something I really want to work on, but I have no time to do it). The warlock becomes the new sorcerer.Whoa, wait, I thought you said "small-to-medium things"? I believe neither nerfing/tweaking all spells or the wizard class breakdown is even remotely close to being a small thing, especially not in terms of the work and play testing required. In addition, IMO the druid, cleric, oracle, summoner and witch are all in as (or nearly as) dire need of complete overhauls as the wizard and sorcerer. Guess the work required is the very reason why there are extremely few home-brew projects (or 3rd party publications?) that do either, and AFAIK only one that doesn't fail at it (Kirthfinder).

The fighter gets a major rehaul, something like this. (http://tinyurl.com/bfg95kf).Some nice ideas for the fighter here, I think. I particularly like the Harassment, Break Through and Team Leader heroics, these PoW/ToB-style abilities are spot on what the fighter (and other martial classes) needs IMO. My general advice would be to try and define the fighter's potential combat roles a bit more clearly and tweak the mechanics accordingly. For example, for a tank (meaning an actual true defender, not just someone that can take a beating and likes being in melee) fighter, Harassment would be a "heroics-tax", also making the role unavailable before 5th level. I think a thematic and mechanically truly useful ability, dependent on a chosen combat role, should be granted as early as first level.

And a nitpick, but what was the intent behind "Hold the Line" actually? As is, the mechanics don't work very well (my emphasis):

By expending a full round action, he designates a number of squares equal to his movement rate.
snip
The first time an opponent steps in one of this squares, the fighter gets to attack him as an immediate action. The defensive line holds until the end of the next round, or if the fighter has attacked once per square, whatever comes first.As written, the fighter expends a full round action to designate the squares and may then attack the first enemy entering once. Full stop. Enemies entering a designated square after the first are unaffected since a) the attack is only triggered "the first time an opponent steps in one" and b) immediate actions can only be taken once per round. Effectively, the fighter has traded both a full round action and a swift/immediate action for one measly additional AoO (with perhaps a bit better reach than normally but also with plenty more restrictions). The "once per square" end condition cannot possibly happen.

Combat feats, like Improved Trip, Cleave etc get re-merged into one.Good, but IME not enough to make them viable in higher levels (as other posters have said). Also, I'd rework some of the higher level monsters and remove much of their maneuver immunities, especially those dependent on size and/or common monster abilities. For example, tripping a flying creature should of course be possible, the only difference should be that a success has a different result than knocking the creature prone (staggered until the end of it's next turn?). I'd also continue with your fighter's "Break Through" mentality, ie keep breaking through (pun intended) 3.PF's implied law that basically says "mundane can only affect the mundane, while magic can affect both the mundane and the magic". In the case of maneuvers and monsters, I'd restrict for example freedom of movement to protect against magic restraints but not physical ones such as grapple attempts, rope or manacles.

Talya

2014-05-23, 04:13 PM

My additions would involve making it more multiclassing-friendly:
-Every character would also get a favored prestige class, and be able to continue applying FC bonuses to that class. (Half-elves would get two!) Characters with a spellcasting base class, could also get FC bonuses to any prestige class that advances spellcasting in a class which is favored for them.
-Anything that advances "+1 level of spellcasting" would also advance specific spellcasting related class features that add bonus spells, such as sorcerer bloodlines and oracle mysteries.

Ssalarn

2014-05-23, 04:50 PM

Changes I'd make:

Fighter gets good Fort and Reflex saves, 4+Int skills, and the feats with Improved and Greater versions become single, level-scaling feats. Weapon Training is an ability that you assign to a specific weapon each day during the same time a Wizard is preparing his spells. Later iterations of Weapon Training allow you to practice with an additional weapon so you have up to 4 Trained weapons at a time.

The only time you add your size bonus to CMD is to resist a Bull Ruch or Overrun. This fixes the scaling issues without changing in-game mechanics at all.

Rogue and Monk get full BAB. Thorough re-evaluation of many rogue talents, removing those that don't actually give something but instead limit something that should already work.

Remove spells like wish from the spell lists, and trim down spells that straight up replace functions performed by skills.

Expand skills to better represent the fact that they exist within the framework of a magical world. A character with 20 ranks in Swim should have a functional swim speed and the ability to hold his breath for hours at a stretch; a character with 20 ranks in climb should have an effective climb speed and the ability to do things like climb a wall while holding a shield and swinging a sword.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-24, 12:25 AM

Mostly good thoughts, I think. They would probably improve the game.
Whoa, wait, I thought you said "small-to-medium things"? I believe neither nerfing/tweaking all spells or the wizard class breakdown is even remotely close to being a small thing, especially not in terms of the work and play testing required. In addition, IMO the druid, cleric, oracle, summoner and witch are all in as (or nearly as) dire need of complete overhauls as the wizard and sorcerer. Guess the work required is the very reason why there are extremely few home-brew projects (or 3rd party publications?) that do either, and AFAIK only one that doesn't fail at it (Kirthfinder).

Some nice ideas for the fighter here, I think. I particularly like the Harassment, Break Through and Team Leader heroics, these PoW/ToB-style abilities are spot on what the fighter (and other martial classes) needs IMO. My general advice would be to try and define the fighter's potential combat roles a bit more clearly and tweak the mechanics accordingly. For example, for a tank (meaning an actual true defender, not just someone that can take a beating and likes being in melee) fighter, Harassment would be a "heroics-tax", also making the role unavailable before 5th level. I think a thematic and mechanically truly useful ability, dependent on a chosen combat role, should be granted as early as first level.

And a nitpick, but what was the intent behind "Hold the Line" actually? As is, the mechanics don't work very well (my emphasis):
As written, the fighter expends a full round action to designate the squares and may then attack the first enemy entering once. Full stop. Enemies entering a designated square after the first are unaffected since a) the attack is only triggered "the first time an opponent steps in one" and b) immediate actions can only be taken once per round. Effectively, the fighter has traded both a full round action and a swift/immediate action for one measly additional AoO (with perhaps a bit better reach than normally but also with plenty more restrictions). The "once per square" end condition cannot possibly happen.

Good, but IME not enough to make them viable in higher levels (as other posters have said). Also, I'd rework some of the higher level monsters and remove much of their maneuver immunities, especially those dependent on size and/or common monster abilities. For example, tripping a flying creature should of course be possible, the only difference should be that a success has a different result than knocking the creature prone (staggered until the end of it's next turn?). I'd also continue with your fighter's "Break Through" mentality, ie keep breaking through (pun intended) 3.PF's implied law that basically says "mundane can only affect the mundane, while magic can affect both the mundane and the magic". In the case of maneuvers and monsters, I'd restrict for example freedom of movement to protect against magic restraints but not physical ones such as grapple attempts, rope or manacles.

Very good points. The wizard/spell change is indeed ratherlarge-ish but it is one I think is doable. There are a handful of spells that really break the game. Also, making the wizard follow the progress of the sorcerer and making him dependent on two stats would do quite a bit, for starters.

The idea that the fighter should get something from the first level is actually something I have been thinking on. All the other fighting classes (barbarian, paladin, ranger) so, either at first or at second level. when I wrote the fix, I wanted it to be as non intrusive as possible. Now, I believe that the fighter should get a heroic at 2nd level at least.

The intend behind 'Hold the Line' is indeed drowned in the way I worded it. What I wanted to describe is this:
The fighter designates the squares. Then he gets to attack ALL the creatures that pass from these squares, without expending AoO, but only once. That means that he can potentially attack as many as say 6 creatures. This is why the 'first time' clause is there. He does not get to do it again and again.

T.G. Oskar

2014-05-24, 01:30 AM

Changes? Quite a bit.

Barbarian: Hybridize the uses of rage. They could start with non-consecutive uses of Rage at 1st level (maybe as it currently is: 4 + Con modifier rounds, not counting the increase from the Rage itself), increase as levels go, and every 3 levels (4th, 7th, 10th, and so on) allow them to recharge their Rage. Rage Powers should be interesting: I find some of them a bit lacking, IMO, and with Rage recharges working as per D&D 3.5, you could have Rage Powers that consume one of your recharges but provides an immense benefit (akin to a spell). Oh, and maybe Spell Resistance after 10th level as a class feature.

Bard: I'd probably recede their uses of Bardic Music/Performance to how they had it in 3.5, but maybe go for class level + Cha modifier, or 1 + 1/2 class level + Cha modifier instead of rounds/day. The extra forms of performance are nice, but I'd probably make them alternatives, allowing the Bard to choose its own performances rather than have a set list (even if Archetypes provide some differences). I'd keep Inspire Competence as per PF rules, though I'd also find ways to boost Inspire Courage as per 3.5.

Cleric: I'd seriously consider going the way of the Ardent (or, for veterans, 2e and Spheres) with them: a small list with spells that every Cleric should have, and the rest are gained by Domains. Of course, the Cleric would get additional domains as it gains levels. And maybe a d6 HD; no supplanting the Rogue and the Monk on that.

Druid: The Nature Bond would be either Animal Companion, Wild Shape OR a specific set of domains, but never Wild Shape + Animal Companion + Spells at once. Also downgrade their HD to a d6.

Fighter: I'd port the Warblade and call it a day, though I'd tack the Bonus Feat progression of the Fighter. Barring that, many people have good ideas: 4 + Int skill points, a more robust skill list (maybe with Perception tacked in), meaningful feats, and more class features. I'd go for style feats which you could switch, a la Ranger except you get a whole lot more freedom, and as you progress you can mix and match styles, change feats in those styles and whatnot. Maybe also an increase to the success of combat maneuvers and/or attacks of opportunity per round. Also Spell Resistance at higher levels. And maybe the capstone being "you become a hero-deity of Divine Rank 0, but you get access to one domain from a specific list". Admit it: the Fighter definitely deserves being a demigod by the time it reaches 20th level.

Monk: I really don't care that much about giving the Monk full BAB or not, but at least I'd make Flurry compatible with TWF and Imp. Natural Attack apply to unarmed strikes. That said, I'd give some support to their special Monk weapons, allowing them to use kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, siangham, sling and shuriken and deal increased damage as per their unarmed strike, but almost always with a delayed progression. I like that they considered ki, but I loathe using ki as a 1-round resource; at a bare minimum, it should be a 1-minute resource, though I'd definitely go for 1 minute/level resources.

Paladin: I'd change the name of "Smite Evil" into something that represents its value, such as "Mark of Punishment" or "Mark of Zealous Judgment". I'd rework its spell list to add more Cleric spells, particularly those that IMO make sense (stuff like Shield of Faith, Magic Vestment, Searing Light, Holy Smite, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Cure Critical Wounds, Air Walk, etc.), and reduce the level of certain spells (such as Dispel Magic as a 2nd level spell rather than a 3rd level spell). I'd make Paladin (and Ranger) spell save DCs, if any, be 10 + (2 x spell level) + ability score modifier, so that they get actually good chance of landing some of their spells. Finally, I'd make it friendly towards the tanking method of "Damage Redirection", spells such as Unwilling Shield should be part of the Paladin's list, and maybe some class features that play with the idea of taking damage from allies or returning the damage dealt to enemies (sort of like the Oradin's bit); auras would be perfect for this. I'd have half a mind to add them a bonus to AC and/or attack/damage rolls once they get Aura of Courage or something, so they can be buffers as well. And some feats. The gods of Good know they need more feats. Aaaand maybe 4 + Int skill points, much like the Fighter and the Sorcerer.

Ranger: Much like the Paladin, I'd rework their spell list with more Druid spells, but also some Sorcerer/Wizard spells as divine spells (Invisibility, Haste, Flame Arrow, etc.) I'd go with a full-power Animal Companion rather than the half-baked proposal of 3.5 or the still meager trait of PF. Ranger Combat Styles would be different: the bonus feats would remain, but they'd actually get class features related to their fighting styles. Maybe also Trapfinding and Disable Device as features?

Rogue: Another worthwhile rehaul. I'd probably port the Inspiration ability of the Factotum and split some of the Factotum's class features between Rogue Talents and actual class features. Stuff like, say, Brains over Brawn or Arcane Dilettante or Opportunistic Piety would probably be Rogue Talents, but stuff like Cunning Defense would be class features. Probably all class skills and 10 + Int skill points as well. And, for the love of all that's good and sacred, maybe give them Weapon Finesse at 1st level. No need for full BAB IMO, but something that they can truly work with. And maybe a revision of Rogue talents; they definitely need those.

Sorcerer: The changes could easily come with the spellcasting, not by altering its class features. I'd consider returning them their d4 hit dice, though, but boost their skill points to 4 + Int.

Wizard: Nothing nice for them. Strip them bare of the class features they acquired, d4 HD, 2 + Int skill points, and a complete rehaul of their spells. Maybe keep the Arcane Bond for what its worth.

Combat feats should definitely get a rehaul.

For starters, as with many others, they should scale. Some would merely be the feat chains collapsed so that they scale with BAB or something: off the top of my mind, I can mention TWF, Step Up, Mobility (in conjunction with Wind Stance and Lightning Stance), Blind-Fight (with Imp. Blind Fight and Greater Blind-Fight), and a few others.
Some feats, as boring as it may sound, will have to scale in terms of numbers: Dodge, Weapon Focus and whatnot would scale in terms of increases to AC and attack rolls. So as long as these examples are few and far between, there shouldn't be a problem with it.
Speaking of scaling: Power Attack and Combat Expertise. PA would return to its 3.5 roots, letting you choose how much of your BAB to spend to determine an equal increase, with its subsequent increase with a 2-handed weapon. Combat Expertise would be the same, except that you get a different benefit when using a light or one-handed weapon in one hand and nothing in the other, making it the "true" fencing starter style.
Return some feats to their 3.5 incarnations. The Imp. [Combat Maneuver] feats should return to their old version, or maybe make them scale as well. I'd take Imp. Trip as a gauge for all other feats; each feat has to do something interesting aside from boosting the chances of success and negating the AoO with each. Also, while not sure about Imp. Feint or Imp. Disarm, I'd remove Combat Expertise as a prerequisite for Improved Trip, if only because the fighting style should be viable for just about everybody.
Weapon Focus line: make it more like Weapon Training and let it apply to weapon groups rather than to a single weapon. Greater Weapon Focus would apply only to one weapon, but it'd let you make any ONE attack as a touch attack each round. Greater Weapon Specialization...no idea with that, but probably ignore DR and hardness with a specific weapon, or treat the weapon as one size category higher, or something along those lines.
Sword & Board: I'd find a way to port Agile Shield Fighter to the line. Imp. Shield Bash should provide, say, extra attacks of opportunity as the scaling benefit, but only with shield bashes. Those two would make a shield a decent offensive weapon and still provide a benefit. From there, find a way to collapse the feat chain into a top of 4 feats at the very least, combining all the offensive traits of PF's feats (Shield Slam, Shield Master, Bashing Finish) with 3.5's feats (Shield Slam, Shield Charge, Shield Sling), and the same with defensive feats (Shield Focus/Greater Shield Focus, Shield Specialization/Greater Shield Specialization, Saving Shield for PF; Active Shield Defense, Shield Specialization, Parrying Shield/Shield Wall, Shieldmate/Imp. Shieldmage for 3.5). The feat chain would be long if taken entirely, but you'd get a serious combination of offense (combine shield bashes with weapon attacks in a full-attack action as if the new-and-improved TWF; chance of bull rush and potentially daze target; add shield and enh. bonus to shield AC to any touch attack and combat maneuvers; make shield bash on a critical hit, etc.)
Fencing: Combat Expertise and Weapon Finesse would be the starter feats for this fighting style. Consider which feats would be good in both 3.5 and PF for fencing, and make it attractive when holding nothing in the off-hand.
Tanking feats. Promote a chain for proper "Hate Tanking" (with Goad/Antagonize as a good starter), another for "Lockdown" (in both its Trip and Stand Still variants) and another for "Damage Redirection" (such as the "In Harm's Way" feat, but on a wider area and without requiring a specific action from your part).

Skill feats should also take a page from Imp. Trip. For example: Alertness not only grants its bonus to Perception and Sense Motive, but if you have Perception as a class skill, you always act in a surprise round as long as the enemy has a CR no higher than your ECL, or unless the target has the Stealthy feat. Stealthy, on the other hand, would probably allow you to roll 2d20 and choose the better of the two when using Stealth, if you have Stealth as a class skill. Persuasive could...I dunno, probably allow you to make a Bluff check whenever you fail a Diplomacy check, or allow you to change the attitude of a character by 3 steps instead of 2 when making a Diplomacy check. Athletic could eventually grant a climb speed or a swim speed if you have Athletics as a class skill and a specific amount of ranks. That makes those feats more interesting, rather than just mere number boosts.

Metamagic feats...I'd work them as metapsionic feats but with a recharge mechanic. Rather than increase the level of the spell slot to use, you can add one (and only ONE) freely and spontaneously, but once used, it goes for a recharge timer. This would make the spells attractive to certain classes that would otherwise ignore them.

All full spellcasters (Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards) have their spells' casting times increased to 1 full-round action (if normally a standard action; otherwise, use the same casting time). They can choose to cast it rapidly (as a standard action) or defensively (as a full-round action), but not the two. Other spellcasters (Bards, Paladins, Rangers) cast at their normal time (usually a standard action). Probably would port Battle Blessing as a feat for Paladins and Rangers.

Prepared full spellcasters (Clerics, Druids, Wizards) gain their first 2nd level spells at 4th level, and then every even level afterwards. Spontaneous full spellcasters (Sorcerers) gain their first 2nd level spells at 3rd level, and then every odd-numbered level afterwards. Other spellcasters (Bards, Paladins, Rangers) cast at their normal spellcasting progression.

Paladins, Rangers and other "half" spellcasters would get full CL for their spells, and the saving throw DC of their spells would be 10 + (2 x spell level) + applicable ability score modifier. Thus, a 1st level Paladin or Ranger spell would have a save DC of 12 + Cha/Wis modifier, as appropriate. This makes such spells more powerful, but since they get it later, it checks out nicely.

Some spells with excessive casting times (Hallow, Planar Binding and its kin, Gate) would become incantations, as per 3.5/d20 Modern. They can be used by anyone with the right skills (making skillmonkeys better at that...hey, look at that, the Rogue can now gate in a Solar better than a Wizard!). That would also include certain spells that shouldn't ever be on a slot (I'm looking at you, Wish). Some spells would still cause problems, though (such as Shapechange).

Magic items meant for mundanes will scale. E.g.; a Flaming weapon starts dealing 1d6 damage, it ends up dealing 3d6 damage + catch fire + turn all weapon damage into fire damage + ignore a portion of resistance. An item such as, say, a Circlet of Blasting would be used by a Fighter as if it had cast it from a spell slot it would otherwise had, with a CL based on its Fighter level rather than a fixed one.

Completely revamp the way magic items are made. No need for Master Craftsman to craft magic items without spellcasting ability. Temper costs to create or buy a magic item, to make it accessible to the right people. Also, take almost completely the table from the MIC for common magic item special qualities and apply that price, so that we don't end up paying 2,000 gp for a +2 to one score placed on a gauntlet instead of a belt.

Maybe also have a Hip slot. Pants aren't the only thing that can be equipped there.

Toy a bit with non-human races:
Elf: Give them some fey blood. Maybe switch their Con penalty as well. Also, some real racial traits; the bonus to Perception is decent, but the bonus to saves vs. enchantments and the free proficiencies are...meh, at best.
Dwarf: They're somewhat fine, though I'd make them hardier. Maybe a +1 natural armor bonus or something?
Gnome: I'd give them elemental blood, even if they're humanoids. Give them affinity to both an element and a school (Fire and Evocation, Air and Illusion, Earth and Transmutation, Water and...Divination? Water and Conjuration [healing]?). The Gnome would be defined by its relation to its core element: Fire Gnomes would be Choleric, Air Gnomes would be Sanguine, Earth Gnomes would be Melancholic and Water Gnomes would be Phlegmatic.
Halfling: Hard to pin down what they could improve.
Orc: Make them a Core race, period.
Half-Elf: They're pretty nice, though I'd give them the human's extra skill point and apply some of the new Elf racial traits as well.
Half-Orc: They're also pretty nice, but they could get a bit more from their human side. How about a free combat feat, much like humans get a free bonus feat?
Goblins & Kobolds: Make them a Core race, period.

Have some racial traits increase with level. For example: the Dwarf's bonus to saving throws against spells could scale up as you take levels. Furthermore, I'd seriously consider making racial feats have their own spell slot, rather than consume one of your general feat slots. Even with the feat rehaul, you RARELY have the chance of getting a feat, let alone two.

...So yeah, these aren't really "small", but I'm not the kind of guy who prefers "small" changes. I really don't mind big changes.

ericgrau

2014-05-24, 11:26 AM

Heya all,

I have been thinking a lot about PF and it seems to me there are some changes, small and not so small, that would really improve the game, at least in the way I see it.. The focus here is on small-to-medium things. Getting rid of classes and the d20 is large, for example. But tweaking spells and feats... that is something different. So here are my thoughts, in random order:

Make all casters need two stats. One determines DC and the other bonus spells.
The wizard gets the progression of the sorcerer. Many spells are nerfed. Alternatively, the wizard breaks into several classes, with very specific specializations a la summoner (this is actually something I really want to work on, but I have no time to do it). The warlock becomes the new sorcerer.
The fighter and the sorcerer get 4 skill points. The fighter gets a major rehaul, something like this. (http://tinyurl.com/bfg95kf).
The barbarian 's rage hps, all but 10, are temporary and thus lost first.
The monk gets a full BAB for maneuvers, simple weapons and monk weapons. His AB is calculated by Dex and his damage by Wis.
The alchemist gets the infusion discovery for free. The time to craft alchemical items for him is calculated as if the prices were in silver. More alchemical items for damage are available.
Swim and climb get merged and become Athletics. Knowledge skills are rethought and new ones get introduced. Local becomes Streetwise. Crafting gets rehauled.
Healing becomes a school. The Heal skill becomes more powerful. The cleric loses his semi-paladin status and becomes a full caster with auras.
Magic item creation goes a step back to ADD. Special formulas and regents are needed.
Combat feats, like Improved Trip, Cleave etc get re-merged into one. A high level Pounce feat becomes available.

I am sure more things will come up, but this is my take. What do you think?

1, 3-5, 7-10: Doesn't make much difference but whatever floats your boat. Adding flavor to crafting sounds cool though. Might need to watch out for zen archers.
2: Pretty dangerous for casual optimization where wizards don't tend to change their spell list often and didn't have much of an advantage beyond spell level in the first place. Whereas the sorc gets spontaneous metamagic for more options, doesn't lose spell options as the fight progresses for even more options, and longer quicken spam. No casual player will ever take wizard if he figures it out. And if you're playing in high op rather than casual, nothing is enough to make up for that. At least PF doesn't have abrupt jaunt and so on so a Forum Wizard is less likely.
6: I've only briefly looked at the alchemist so I can't say.

PF doesn't have as many cheesy tricks available, especially not class exclusive ones. So I'd take out #2 unless all your players are hardcore planners to the point that that's all you do for 3/4 of a gaming session. For the other 8 or 9 items, sure, whatever floats your boat. At least you aren't filling pages and pages like some DMs do. And I like flavorful changes like the crafting to keep the campaign world interesting.

I'd be extremely wary of reducing magic items in PF. You'll shaft classes without magic hard, the system itself needs them. One alternative I've found if you don't like the flavor is to give the players points instead of WBL, and let them buy the abilities of many magic items at level up. You can still have some magic items that are found or bought too. There's an example way in my sig though I never got a response to my request to unlock the thread to fix the tables.

upho

2014-05-24, 12:27 PM

The intend behind 'Hold the Line' is indeed drowned in the way I worded it. What I wanted to describe is this:
The fighter designates the squares. Then he gets to attack ALL the creatures that pass from these squares, without expending AoO, but only once. That means that he can potentially attack as many as say 6 creatures. This is why the 'first time' clause is there. He does not get to do it again and again.I thought so.
How 'bout this:

Once per day per five levels, the fighter may set up a defensive line. As a full round action, he may designate a number of squares equal to his movement rate. The squares must be in a straight line that does not include difficult terrain, and at least three of the squares must be adjacent to the fighter. Until the start of the fighter's next turn, as a free action, the fighter may move, without provoking attacks of opportunity, and attack an opponent that enters one of the designated squares for the first time, effectively interrupting the opponent's movement. The fighter may make one such attack per designated square, and his movement must take the shortest path possible to a space where he can attack his target. At 11th level, the defensive line becomes a wall including an equal number of vertical squares below and/or above those designated, allowing fighter to also attack opponents entering those squares (assuming he has the appropriate movement mode).Wordy, but I don't really see how to compress it without weakening the mechanics or leaving glaring holes in the description.

JusticeZero

2014-05-24, 04:04 PM

Completely redesigning the T1 casters is pretty much the definition of a large change.. regardless of how much they might need it.I think that, in the way I proposed it above, is the smallest of the large changes. Compared to say, magic as a skill, or classless magic.
Nonetheless, it is completely in defiance of the stated goal as set out. As a result, it reads a bit like this:

Fuel efficiency on your car getting you down? Here are some basic things that anyone can do to increase their fuel efficiency!

Make sure your tires are inflated properly!
Take the extra junk out of the back of your car to make it lighter!
Remove the engine block entirely and retrofit in a diesel engine, rewiring the vehicle completely to make it fit properly! Remove the hood of the car and use a metal fabrication unit to build a new one. Judicious use of welding tools and epoxy will allow you to alter the frame of the car to make it fit correctly, and you can use foam moulding to make the lines of the car look like new. This is a small change, because it is much less drastic than replacing the engine with an electric motor and battery system.

ProudGrognard

2014-05-24, 04:38 PM

I thought so.
How 'bout this:
Wordy, but I don't really see how to compress it without weakening the mechanics or leaving glaring holes in the description.

That is actually ingenious. Thank you!

ProudGrognard

2014-05-24, 04:40 PM

Nonetheless, it is completely in defiance of the stated goal as set out. As a result, it reads a bit like this:

Fuel efficiency on your car getting you down? Here are some basic things that anyone can do to increase their fuel efficiency!

Make sure your tires are inflated properly!
Take the extra junk out of the back of your car to make it lighter!
Remove the engine block entirely and retrofit in a diesel engine, rewiring the vehicle completely to make it fit properly! Remove the hood of the car and use a metal fabrication unit to build a new one. Judicious use of welding tools and epoxy will allow you to alter the frame of the car to make it fit correctly, and you can use foam moulding to make the lines of the car look like new. This is a small change, because it is much less drastic than replacing the engine with an electric motor and battery system.

Well you got me. My masterplan to pass large changes as small is now foiled. Hail Hydra!

Kurald Galain

2014-05-28, 07:33 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-28, 08:05 AM

Speaking of small changes, in the category of "things that just bug me", can we get rid of the rule that with a reach weapon you can't threaten enemies that are adjacent? Basically everyone just gets a cheap metal gauntlet to deal with this, but in terms of rules it's just plain silly.

Well idk... We want 3.P to immulate real life and we all know that it takes super special training to hit a target close to you with a spear. I think the fighter gets that ability as a move action or something... *sigh*

But no, yeah reach weapons should be more like 4e where they just increase your reach by 5ft (unless they changed it since I've been away).

Another thing I would change is that 1 square = 5 ft. I know it is good for dungeons but for combat it gets weird.

Perhaps get rid of microfeats and replace them with macrofeats. Make gaining a feat worth it instead of a fiddly little +2 to a random situation or to damage... Boring.

If you introduced macrofeats then feats wouldn't need to scale (but could) and all those bonus fighter feats become damn awesome and could boost the fighter up a tier.

Example Macro Feat

Fight against the weave
Gain the following when you take this feat
*Spell craft as a class skill (with 1 free rank to place in it when you take this feat)
*Blind Fight (becomes improved and greater version automatically when you meet requirements)
*Mage Slayer (3.5)
*Pierce Magical Concealment (3.5)

MilesBeyond

2014-05-28, 08:45 AM

There are a few changes I've thought about making to the Rogue. Thought I'd toss them in here. Let me know what you think.

1. Every four levels, the Rogue gets Skill Focus for free. The idea here is to buff up the Rogue's skill monkey status. I'm AD&D at heart, and so to me, Rogues (aka Thieves) will always be first and foremost about skills.

I had an alternative idea about every four levels, the maximum number of ranks a Rogue can put in a skill increases by one, but free Skill Focuses seems simpler.

2. New and exciting Rogue Talent #1: Tumbling no longer provokes an AoO

3. New and exciting Rogue Talent #2: Sneak Attacks with a ranged weapon may now be performed from up to 60 ft away.

Basically, we're giving the Rogue more skill points and more sneak attack capability. I think this would make the Rogue a stronger class while still focusing on what makes it special. I don't imagine that it would bump the Rogue up a tier, but that's okay.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-28, 09:00 AM

torrasque666

2014-05-28, 09:14 AM

I assume that would also stack with the Sniper archetype's Deadly Range feature?

MilesBeyond

2014-05-28, 09:57 AM

Make number three scale with level.

Level 1-5: 60 ft.
Level 6-10: 80 ft
Level 11-15: 100 ft
Level 16+: 120 ft.

That rouge may get a longbow and snipe from a distance.

Oh, excellent idea. Being able to sneak attack from 120 ft away could go a long way towards making ranged Rogues more viable at high levels, IMHO. Especially when combined with the capstone.

I assume that would also stack with the Sniper archetype's Deadly Range feature?

Hmmm, now that's a good question. I was making these changes for CRB but you're right, the APG is common enough that it should be taken into consideration.

I don't see any issues with them stacking. I mean it's not like being able to SA from 200ft is going to make the Rogue T1 or anything. The talent could possibly make the Sniper slightly redundant, but I think it should be alright.

I also just realized that I don't think anyone's mentioned yet what I think is the single greatest change that needs to happen to the Rogue, and arguably the simplest:

Cunning Sense (or something. Names aren't my forte): Rogue ability that arrives early on, maybe even at level 1. The Rogue may choose to apply her INT (or hell, maybe even DEX) bonus to Perception checks instead of her WIS.

It's virtually a guarantee that this already exists somewhere in a splatbook as a feat or an archetype or racial ability or something, but IMHO it's such a basic thing that it should be made a core part of the class.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-28, 11:28 AM

I assume that would also stack with the Sniper archetype's Deadly Range feature?

Yes, why should casters be the only ones that get things to stack?

Besides at that level you could give the rogue an ability to shoot an arrow up into the air (con mod times per encounter) and hit anyone in the world for a sneak attack... No line of sight but target must have line of effect to the sky... And it still wouldn't be as broken as some other things.

I kinda like that actually... Very high non-casters fantasy.

MilesBeyond

2014-05-28, 12:59 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-28, 02:34 PM

Right? You could start passing out semi-automatics to Rogues and they'd still be underpowered relative to casters.

That's not to say that we should dump ridiculous buffs on Rogues, but it does mean that Sniper and the talent stacking isn't really a big deal IMHO

Well one thing I've seen is using 4e with 3.P.

At first level gain a 4e rogue class feature and Dex to attack and damage.

Gain an at-will effect onto all your melee or ranged attacks.

Anytime you gain a rogue talent you may gain a utility power or an 1/encounter effect (extra damage or status effect).

You need to change a few status effects but it works decently well adding more oomph to the rogue.

upho

2014-05-28, 06:37 PM

Well one thing I've seen is using 4e with 3.P.

At first level gain a 4e rogue class feature and Dex to attack and damage.

Gain an at-will effect onto all your melee or ranged attacks.

Anytime you gain a rogue talent you may gain a utility power or an 1/encounter effect (extra damage or status effect).

You need to change a few status effects but it works decently well adding more oomph to the rogue.This seems like a good idea IMO. Probably the best quick-fix I've seen for the rogue so far (provided you have access to the 4e rules, of course).

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-28, 07:33 PM

This seems like a good idea IMO. Probably the best quick-fix I've seen for the rogue so far (provided you have access to the 4e rules, of course).

You can actually run a 4e character in a 3.P game, weirdly enough. I ran a 4e Warlock where only the DM knew I was running him from a different edition (minor tweaks were needed, though mostly just attack bonus) and it turned out pretty great. The 3.5 people thought I was running a Pathfinder class and the Pathfinder people thought I was running a 3.5 class. :smallbiggrin:

Most of 4e is working off from alternate rules from 3.5 to begin with so they are more compatible than one would initially think.

upho

2014-05-29, 06:58 AM

You can actually run a 4e character in a 3.P game, weirdly enough. I ran a 4e Warlock where only the DM knew I was running him from a different edition (minor tweaks were needed, though mostly just attack bonus) and it turned out pretty great. The 3.5 people thought I was running a Pathfinder class and the Pathfinder people thought I was running a 3.5 class. :smallbiggrin:LOL! Now I just have to bring a 4e NPC into my upcoming campaign, just to see if any of the players gets it...

Most of 4e is working off from alternate rules from 3.5 to begin with so they are more compatible than one would initially think.:smalleek: Hush! This is so very true, but I'm quite certain many edition fan-boy warriors would implode if they actually became aware. And I don't think either of us wants to be responsible for that...

Seriously though, it makes me suspect this could also be a great quick-fix for the PF fighter and monk. I mean, just adding the Combat Challenge marking mechanic and a few at-will powers from the 4e version would likely have a huge impact on the PF fighter's performance. Though seeing how most(?) PF players seem to regard 4e, I think maybe the greatest challenge would be getting people to try and play test it instead of flat out dismissing it on the basis of various irrelevant stuff ("4e filth might make 3.PF better?! Are you mad?!"). :smallamused:

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-29, 09:01 AM

LOL! Now I just have to bring a 4e NPC into my upcoming campaign, just to see if any of the players gets it...

:smalleek: Hush! This is so very true, but I'm quite certain many edition fan-boy warriors would implode if they actually became aware. And I don't think either of us wants to be responsible for that...

Seriously though, it makes me suspect this could also be a great quick-fix for the PF fighter and monk. I mean, just adding the Combat Challenge marking mechanic and a few at-will powers from the 4e version would likely have a huge impact on the PF fighter's performance. Though seeing how most(?) PF players seem to regard 4e, I think maybe the greatest challenge would be getting people to try and play test it instead of flat out dismissing it on the basis of various irrelevant stuff ("4e filth might make 3.PF better?! Are you mad?!"). :smallamused:

The 4e monk... Hot damn that is fun to play. If you ported the powers/class features over to 3.P you may or may not get past tier 4 BUT it would be fun as hell to play. I think the 4e monk is the only time WotC or Paizo actually got it right.

But yeah, the hardest part is trying to explain to people that 4e isn't as great and isn't as bad as what people make it out to be, just like 3.P. The three systems work nicely together with a little bit of tweaking.

The fighter would be the easiest to port over, or at least the one no one would really notice it was a 4e class. The warlord would stick out like a sore thumb, unless you said it was a ToB maneuver it was using to give others free melee basic attacks.

mephnick

2014-05-29, 09:58 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-29, 11:02 AM

Yeah, you should threaten for sure, that's just dumb.

Not being able to hit adjacent bugs me too. Maybe you should lose any Str bonus, since you can't get the leverage you want or something. Or get an attack as an improvised weapon.

Why would you suddenly not be able to put force into stabbing someone "5ft" away with a spear? I hit a guy 5 feet away from me with a 10 ft PVC pipe not to long ago by accodent ... The guy got a concussion and a ton of stitches. (Do note he was walking somewhere he shouldn't have been, total accident. He tried to dodge but still got hit). I'm sure if I can do that by accident then fantasy warriors shouldn't be punished for doing something similar on purpose.

Sounds like one step forward and three steps backwards.

Ravens_cry

2014-05-29, 11:44 AM

Why would you suddenly not be able to put force into stabbing someone "5ft" away with a spear? I hit a guy 5 feet away from me with a 10 ft PVC pipe not to long ago by accodent ... The guy got a concussion and a ton of stitches. (Do note he was walking somewhere he shouldn't have been, total accident. He tried to dodge but still got hit). I'm sure if I can do that by accident then fantasy warriors shouldn't be punished for doing something similar on purpose.

Sounds like one step forward and three steps backwards.

Did you hit him with the tip or the side of the pipe? Because on a pole arm, that's where the the really part the damage for a d20 polearm is derived from. If you wanted to try to make things more logical, you could make all reach polearms work like the spinning lance class class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/dragoon) feature for the Dragoon Fighter. Of course, if you do that, you should let swords and daggers choose to do bludgeoning damage as for a club (-1 size category perhaps, unless you had a feat to do a mordhau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordstreich)) as you can hit someone with the pommel.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-29, 11:53 AM

Did you hit him with the tip or the side of the pipe? Because on a pole arm, that's where the the really part the damage for a d20 polearm is derived from. If you wanted to try to make things more logical, you could make all reach polearms work like the spinning lance class class (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/dragoon) feature for the Dragoon Fighter. Of course, if you do that, you should let swords and daggers choose to do bludgeoning damage as for a club (-1 size category perhaps, unless you had a feat to do a mordhau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordstreich)) as you can hit someone with the pommel.

Tip, there is a big ring on his head because of it.

Also logical and weapons from 3.P doesn't go hand in hand. :p

Edit: also the whole thought of punishment to do something is pretty bad way to make a game. Especially if one group doesn't get punished while another one does.

Edit 2: How about we start reducing DCs for spells when you use metamagic or reducing DCs when you apply feats to them? A metamagic spell uses the same DC as the original spell level by using a higher level slot? So what? There are so many lowered level spells that people gladly would put a MM feat on just to cast it as a 3rd level (or lower) spell.

If you have combat casting and you cast defensively... How about the DC is at a -1 or -2 because you are using the feat combat casting.

Ravens_cry

2014-05-29, 02:49 PM

Tip, there is a big ring on his head because of it.

Hmm, I withdraw most of my objections then.

Also logical and weapons from 3.P doesn't go hand in hand. :p

Perhaps, D&D combat is rather abstracted, though that's actually an argument against adding this layer of complexity and granularity to the game.

Edit: also the whole thought of punishment to do something is pretty bad way to make a game. Especially if one group doesn't get punished while another one does.

Edit 2: How about we start reducing DCs for spells when you use metamagic or reducing DCs when you apply feats to them? A metamagic spell uses the same DC as the original spell level by using a higher level slot? So what? There are so many lowered level spells that people gladly would put a MM feat on just to cast it as a 3rd level (or lower) spell.

If you have combat casting and you cast defensively... How about the DC is at a -1 or -2 because you are using the feat combat casting.
What is punishment angle you are going here coming from, or are you referring to another post?

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-30, 10:20 AM

Hmm, I withdraw most of my objections then.

Perhaps, D&D combat is rather abstracted, though that's actually an argument against adding this layer of complexity and granularity to the game.

What is punishment angle you are going here coming from, or are you referring to another post?

Every time non-casters gain something they have to take a penalty or give something up.

Unless the same option can be taken by a caster, at least for the most part.

Power Attack, a feat that is specially for non-casters ... Some casters may take it but it is generally not worth it. Penalty to attack to gain more damage (higher the level the higher the penalty and more damage). Empower or Maximize spell grants you 50% more damage or maximized damage on spells that don't require an attack roll. You can argue that using a lower level spell in a higher level slot is a penalty but using a lower level (augmented spell) in a higher level slot (with original spell level DC) is worth it because the higher level spells aren't always worth it.

Dazing Magic Missile
Rime Spell
Quicken Spell

But if a non caster wants to hit a creature 5 feet away from them with a polearm then they have to give up a class feature and gain a new class feature that gives a penalty to the attack roll.

This mentality is all over pathfinder and 3.5. Penalties for the sake of a false realism aspect when we have dragons flying around and magic users casting fireball. This mentality needs to stop.

How about a power attack feat that does the following...

Power Attack
When using a weapon you deal more damage than normal.

1 handed weapon: +25% damage (1 point extra for every 4 points dealt)

2 handed weapon: +50% damage (1 point extra for every 2points dealt)

In a game so damn broken there is no reason what so ever to penalize players for playing the less optimal classes.

Gemini476

2014-05-30, 11:14 AM

Every time non-casters gain something they have to take a penalty or give something up.

Unless the same option can be taken by a caster, at least for the most part.

Power Attack, a feat that is specially for non-casters ... Some casters may take it but it is generally not worth it. Penalty to attack to gain more damage (higher the level the higher the penalty and more damage). Empower or Maximize spell grants you 50% more damage or maximized damage on spells that don't require an attack roll. You can argue that using a lower level spell in a higher level slot is a penalty but using a lower level (augmented spell) in a higher level slot (with original spell level DC) is worth it because the higher level spells aren't always worth it.

Power Attack is -1 to-hit for +2 damage, and Empower Spell is (effectively) -2 DC for +1d6 damage/2 CL.

Yeah, it needs a bit of rejiggering. -1 to-hit for +2 damage/BAB might be more accurate.

Although it would be a bit funny to see what the reaction to the BD&D-era "Power Attack" would be.

Smash
Prerequisite: BAB+9 or Monk 9 (or something similar. Maybe just make it a class feature?)
You can spend a standard action to ready a smash at the end of the round. When you perform a smash, you make a melee attack with -5 to-hit and add your entire strength score to the damage. For example, a Strength 17 fighter (+3 to attack and damage) using a +2 longsword (+2 to attack, 1d8+2 damage) would perform a smash this way: He rolls to hit with a net penalty of +0 (+3 +2 -5). If he hits, he rolls 1d8+22 (17 +3 +2) for damage!

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-30, 12:06 PM

Power Attack is -1 to-hit for +2 damage, and Empower Spell is (effectively) -2 DC for +1d6 damage/2 CL.

Yeah, it needs a bit of rejiggering. -1 to-hit for +2 damage/BAB might be more accurate.

Although it would be a bit funny to see what the reaction to the BD&D-era "Power Attack" would be.

The thing about the spell using a higher level slot for a lower level spell...

You aren't casting a 5th level spell, you are casting an augmented 3rd level spell. You get so many spells that dropping that 5th level slot is nothing because of what you get to do with your "3rd" level spell. The so called penalty isn't on the same level as the penalty for non-casters. If a creature passes a save then they still get effected by a ton of spells and effects but of the non caster misses AC then nothing happens.

Plus there are spells that don't take into account defenses, buffing and control spells are awesome after all.

So what happens is casters get a slap on the hand but non-casters get thunder punched in the throat.

Heck, you have to take 12 levels of barbarian to get pounce while a summoner's eidolon gets pounce at level 1... This example the penalty is time and xp for the player.

Your example still gives a penalty. The idea of hitting harder makes you miss more is weird. Hitting harder isn't just about swinging wildly but being accurate and how you use your entire body.

Bruce Lee could hit someone without a 1 inch punch (or whatever inch) and that would be a normal hit. But his "power attack" which has the same chance of hitting but with X% more power by using his 1 inch punch.

Swinging a sword for more damage isn't just about pure strength. Depending on how you hold the weapon and how you swing can increase or decrease the damage.

And hell if you wanted to say it was only pure strength then based on how STR is used for the attack roll... Wouldn't putting more strength into your hit make you more accurate? When I raise my strength from 15 to 16 I don't get less accurate so why when using power attack (making my strike harder) do I get less accurate?

How about...

Power Attack (Combat) (Non-Caster)
Prerequisite: Str 13

Anytime you make an Unarmed Strike, Str Ability Check, or Weapon melee attack you may treat your Strength modifier as 3 higher. When you gain BAB +4, +8, +12, +16, and 20 this bonus to your strength modifier increases by @ cumulative +3.

The "penalty" for taking this feat? You give up a feat slot and can"t take a different feat.

(Note, I'm going to homebrew some feats based on this)

Edit: Non-Caster tag on feats means that PCs with equal or more levels in a class that grants 6th level or more spells in their progression than a class that doesn't have 6th level or higher spells can't take this feat. The PC doesn't have the time to practice using this feat due to their focus on learning and using more spells.

upho

2014-05-30, 04:14 PM

Yeah, you should threaten for sure, that's just dumb.

Not being able to hit adjacent bugs me too. Maybe you should lose any Str bonus, since you can't get the leverage you want or something. Or get an attack as an improvised weapon.I'm personally of the opinion that rule exception mechanics (such as those of reach weapons) in 3.PF should be as simple and as balanced as possible in their attempt to at least appear somewhat "logical" (consistent with the "realism" implied/illustrated by the system). By this, I mean that all three aspects - simplicity, balance and "logic" - matter, but also that PF would benefit from new/altered mechanics designed with a much greater focus on the simplicity and balance aspects. In contrast, the primary design goal of the 3.PF weapons seems to have been to model not RL medieval weapons, but rather medieval weapons as imagined by a South Park kid (see for example the katana (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/katana) description). Seems most weapons did usually get some minor balancing factors added as an afterthought, but there are also quite a few examples of balance having been made poor intentionally, in misguided attempts to better simulate the "South Park" versions of real weapons. I mean crossbows and water balloons (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=4?False-Options-in-Pathfinder), anyone? :smallmad:

Sorry 'bout the rant, sort of a pet peeve of mine.

Anyhow, regardless of SpawnOfMorbo's (obviously impressive) fighting skills with a +5 PVC pipe or other RL-comparisons, I think a reach weapon mechanic must first and foremost be acceptable in terms of all the balance issues tied to it - no one wants another crossbow. For example, this means that using a reach weapon against adjacent enemies should not be as good as using it with reach (at least if keeping the weapons' current properties), but it should be at least competitive with armor spikes or spiked gauntlets. So... Maybe half damage die, x1 str bonus and count as off-hand for the purpose of PA (1-1 attack/damage ratio)?

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-05-31, 08:58 AM

I'm personally of the opinion that rule exception mechanics (such as those of reach weapons) in 3.PF should be as simple and as balanced as possible in their attempt to at least appear somewhat "logical" (consistent with the "realism" implied/illustrated by the system). By this, I mean that all three aspects - simplicity, balance and "logic" - matter, but also that PF would benefit from new/altered mechanics designed with a much greater focus on the simplicity and balance aspects. In contrast, the primary design goal of the 3.PF weapons seems to have been to model not RL medieval weapons, but rather medieval weapons as imagined by a South Park kid (see for example the katana (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/katana) description). Seems most weapons did usually get some minor balancing factors added as an afterthought, but there are also quite a few examples of balance having been made poor intentionally, in misguided attempts to better simulate the "South Park" versions of real weapons. I mean crossbows and water balloons (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=4?False-Options-in-Pathfinder), anyone? :smallmad:

Sorry 'bout the rant, sort of a pet peeve of mine.

Anyhow, regardless of SpawnOfMorbo's (obviously impressive) fighting skills with a +5 PVC pipe or other RL-comparisons, I think a reach weapon mechanic must first and foremost be acceptable in terms of all the balance issues tied to it - no one wants another crossbow. For example, this means that using a reach weapon against adjacent enemies should not be as good as using it with reach (at least if keeping the weapons' current properties), but it should be at least competitive with armor spikes or spiked gauntlets. So... Maybe half damage die, x1 str bonus and count as off-hand for the purpose of PA (1-1 attack/damage ratio)?

Fighting skills? I was just moving PVC pipes, not fighting. I'm not sure why you equate what I said to me being able to fight... That was a bit of a stretch.

The fact that you can really hit someone close to you with a long "reach weapon" shouldn't be taken as unrealistic or be set to penalize the fantasy warrior for doing such a thing. Hell we have people who cast magic and we allow dragons to fly, and hitting someone 5 feet away with a 10 foot pole is a problem for realism and balance?

We can wrap our mind over everything else until it comes to the non-casters, then by god they better work on the rules of real life people even if we get those real life rules wrong.

Heck, 4e D&D reach weapons are good but I see people going for great swords all the time in that edition just like in 3.P... Didn't seem to effect the game balance at all.

upho

2014-06-05, 02:39 AM

Fighting skills? I was just moving PVC pipes, not fighting. I'm not sure why you equate what I said to me being able to fight... That was a bit of a stretch.Yes, you were simply moving, imagine then how totally lethal you'd be if actually fighting with that pipe? You'd be awesome! :smalltongue: Seriously though, in the context of the discussion about lethal weapons made to kill, I simply thought it was hilarious (although tragic as well) how much damage you accidentally inflicted with a plastic pipe - which (if using PF rules as a guideline) must mean that the pipe was likely magic and that you're a warrior of great strength. Sorry, I should've made it more clear I was simply joking. I hope the guy who got hit is OK now.

My main point however, was that I believe Real LifeTM examples may be an inspiration when setting the actual numbers for the system's weapons, but it should have much lower priority than balance and internal consistency.

The fact that you can really hit someone close to you with a long "reach weapon" shouldn't be taken as unrealistic or be set to penalize the fantasy warrior for doing such a thing. Hell we have people who cast magic and we allow dragons to fly, and hitting someone 5 feet away with a 10 foot pole is a problem for realism and balance?

We can wrap our mind over everything else until it comes to the non-casters, then by god they better work on the rules of real life people even if we get those real life rules wrong.Exactly. Though my reason for suggesting less than "full" use of reach weapons when used within 5 ft. is that their current stats (in relation to other weapons) would make them no-brainers. And no-brainers make the game less fun and can be easily avoided, IMO.

Heck, 4e D&D reach weapons are good but I see people going for great swords all the time in that edition just like in 3.P... Didn't seem to effect the game balance at all.I designed a rather comprehensive system for easy creation of balanced weapons in 4e (which was thoroughly tested by hundreds of people), using only the existing weapons as guidelines, and 4e does put a much greater value on reach than PF currently does. Meaning the more powerful reach mechanic in 4e has a considerably greater impact on other weapon stats than the current reach mechanic of PF has.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-05, 08:16 AM

Yes, you were simply moving, imagine then how totally lethal you'd be if actually fighting with that pipe? You'd be awesome! :smalltongue: Seriously though, in the context of the discussion about lethal weapons made to kill, I simply thought it was hilarious (although tragic as well) how much damage you accidentally inflicted with a plastic pipe - which (if using PF rules as a guideline) must mean that the pipe was likely magic and that you're a warrior of great strength. Sorry, I should've made it more clear I was simply joking. I hope the guy who got hit is OK now.

My main point however, was that I believe Real LifeTM examples may be an inspiration when setting the actual numbers for the system's weapons, but it should have much lower priority than balance and internal consistency.

Exactly. Though my reason for suggesting less than "full" use of reach weapons when used within 5 ft. is that their current stats (in relation to other weapons) would make them no-brainers. And no-brainers make the game less fun and can be easily avoided, IMO.

I designed a rather comprehensive system for easy creation of balanced weapons in 4e (which was thoroughly tested by hundreds of people), using only the existing weapons as guidelines, and 4e does put a much greater value on reach than PF currently does. Meaning the more powerful reach mechanic in 4e has a considerably greater impact on other weapon stats than the current reach mechanic of PF has.

Yeah this happened a while ago, he is doing fine but he knows not to do stupid things anymore. We joke about it, he is a higher level employee than me so he keeps saying stuff about trying to take his job and he needs to watch out for me haha (I do not want his job, I rather become a staff scientist than a PM. I'm a scientist 1, we were putting together a remediation system when this all happened).

No worries, I just hear people on the net a lot bragging about how awesome they are in real life and it is annoying and usually lies (I'm a ninja master but I'm 300lbs was one...) and I just didn't want people thinking I was bragging or saying I was awesome or something when I'm not (well not with fighting with a pipe :smalltongue:)

I would love it if the weapon system would be recreated. Why is a sword more dangerous than a dagger? They both kill and in the hands of a trained person a knife is just as lethal as any other weapon. Heck, daggers and short swords were used to kill heavy armored army dudes back in the day because they could hit the vital areas.

I would like to see... Maybe something like...

Class Weapons: These are weapons your class grants proficiency in. These also are the weapons that, when you wield them, deal 1d10 base damage. If you wield a weapon similar to your class weapons (have groupings and a chart) but not on your list there is no penalty to attack rolls but your damage die drops to 1d6. If you take weapon focus you gain a +1 to attacks and a step up increase in die, weapon focus can be retrained at any time using 30 minutes or whatever.

So a level 2 Fighter with a weapon (they get all weapon groups unlike other classes?) take weapon focus (long spear), that spear does 2d6 damage.

Then make Keywords (total fan of keywords) that non-casters (anyone having a class that doesn't grant 6th level or higher spells... Or anyone that has more class levels in a non casting class than a casting class) that they can add to their weapon. This is a training issue and not a weapon specific issue. Each weapon gets 1 free keyword plus its normal piercing/bludgeoning/slashing property. These don't stack (so you can't high crit 3 times for super high crit) but do stack with feats and other abilities. These are a personal training so if you have multiple weapons the choices for one apply (if possible) to all weapons you wield.

Keywords

Reach: Increase reach by 5ft. (Free Action)

Charging: Increase damage on a hit while charging

Anti-Charging: Increase damage on a hit against a creature who charged before the end of your last turn.

Brutal: Anytime you roll a 1 on your damage die it counts as if you rolled a 2.

Maneuver: Increases your ability to perform 2 combat maneuvers. Treat your size as one larger when performing a combat maneuver. (My houserules don't rely on size, but other games use it soooo... Yeah)

Piercing/Slashing/Bludgeoning: Weapon deals this kind of damage. All weapons gain this property but it may be switched depending on how the weapon is used. Some weapons (one without a point) would not be able to deal piecing etc.

High Crit: Increase critical multiplier by 1.

Two Weapon Fighting: Make two attack rolls. If you hit with the second weapon it deals minimum damage.

Power Attack: Take a penalty to AC to gain a boost in power. -1 AC for +2 damage (+4 if wielding a weapon in two hands). May take a penalty to AC up to your BAB.

So a level 1 Fighter with weapon focus (sickle) can select 1 keyword to add to his weapon attacks.

Sickle: 2d6 + Str Mod Damage
Weapon type: Slashing
Keywords: Brutal

So his attack would be 1d20 + BAB + STR + 1
His damage would be 2d6 (Brutal 1) + Str slashing damage. Minimum damage would be 4 + Str modifier.

At level (or BAB?) 4, 8, 12, 16, 18, and 20 non-casters gain another keyword that they can add to the weapons.

He could grab the one handed weapon in two hands to up his damage, grab another weapon, he could grab a shield, or he could keep it bare so that he can use other items or potions.

But if you keep HP about the same the PCs won't really need to optimize for a ton of damage since they will already shine. Then all those feats can be used to actually round out the character instead of the class. Perhaps I want to be a fighter with a lot of skills, with this weapon system I won't need to focus my class on picking all the best damage feats and could afford to take Skill Focus (Perform a Jig). Heck this system could get rid of a lot of trap feats.

Note: Monsters should have their own creation rules a la 4e. As much as I hear people wine about 4e the monster creation is top notch and pretty damn easy to homebrew for (yay keywords! Lol).

Edit: And you know what is fantastic about the Keyword system? Easy to homebrew. DMs can say no to specific keywords but yet keep others. Or they can add their own by following a set of guidelines.

Also new Feat.

Extra Training
Prerequisite: Fighter 2
Benefit: You gain one extra weapon training (keyword) ability.

Special: You may take this feat multiple times but only once you reach Fighter level 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Working on this here

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?354890-Base-Weapon-Rules-(Weapon-Training)&p=17581451#post17581451

upho

2014-06-06, 08:34 AM

No worries, I just hear people on the net a lot bragging about how awesome they are in real life and it is annoying and usually lies (I'm a ninja master but I'm 300lbs was one...) and I just didn't want people thinking I was bragging or saying I was awesome or something when I'm not (well not with fighting with a pipe :smalltongue:)Well, you sure did impress me at least, even though I understood it wasn't your intent. I mean, your story may have a definite lack of "real" weapons, secret ninja techniques and villains seeking to cause you harm, but proves you're so damn lethal you K.O. people with something as completely non-sexy as PVC pipes! By accident! :smallbiggrin:

(Though come to think of it, I have seen PVC pipes thick and heavy enough to easily be more than painful to "bump into". I sure wouldn't want to be on either the receiving or "wielding" end of one of those in an accident.)

I would love it if the weapon system would be recreated. Why is a sword more dangerous than a dagger? They both kill and in the hands of a trained person a knife is just as lethal as any other weapon. Heck, daggers and short swords were used to kill heavy armored army dudes back in the day because they could hit the vital areas.Well, the thing about daggers and armors somewhat true AFAIK, but these real world comparisons present quite a few problems IMO:

First, the game bunches together weapons and armor from a RL time period that spans over 500 years, meaning some of those weapons were really good against some of the armor (usually those from about the same time or earlier), while some would've been near useless against other armor in RL. (For example, during the last century of the medieval age, it would've been virtually impossible for a longbow archer to stop a foe in high quality full plate, while the same archer probably would've been able to penetrate just about any armor designed some fifty years earlier. In addition, quite a few of the weapons that kept their name for centuries changed significantly in design - a 13th century longsword (like this (http://www.albion-europe.com/swords/swords-by-productline/nextgeneration/handandahalf/model.aspx?model=88)) has a broad thin blade designed for cutting power, making it very effective against the typical foe in mail or lighter armor, while a longsword two centuries later (like this (http://www.albion-europe.com/swords/swords-by-productline/nextgeneration/handandahalf/model.aspx?model=20)) is typically much stiffer and more tapered and pointy to facilitate powerful thrusts to penetrate or find gaps in hardened plate armor. And these differences in development pales in comparison to say those of the heavier crossbows from those same eras.)

Second, I believe the effectiveness of various RL weapons vary considerably, just as a wielder's skill may, of course. (The most obvious signs of this can be seen in finds from the medieval age - according to historians, no professional warrior or soldier fought with daggers as primary weapons. Rather, it seems such light weapons were only used in the far less common situations when larger weapons would've been unwieldy or unavailable. Which in my opinion and (limited) experience isn't very strange, considering the great advantages a larger weapon like a longsword, not to mention a spear or other reach weapon, offers. Or in other words, if you were to spend say a month with a good teacher to learn how to wield a longsword, and then were forced to fight someone wielding daggers who had spent years training with them, I'd bet my money on you. And that's even if I were to disregard my knowledge of your talent for fencing with heavier weapons... :smallwink: )

Third, and most importantly, do we even want the game to closely mimic what is known about RL medieval combat? I don't think so. While there's a point in the argument that players should know reasonably well what to expect from different weapons and armor types without having seen their stats, players have wildly varying levels of knowledge about how those weapons and armors were used and what they were effective against in RL, and therefore just as wildly different expectations on their details. (As an example, if I were to play a game which claims to have "realistic" rules for weapons and armor, I would be annoyed/amused if I could use my longbow to hurt opponents in full plate on anything less than a natural 20. In addition, there are quite a few unrealistic but IMO cool "iconic" weapons and armors in the game that I believe most players enjoy (greataxe, spiked armor, most double weapons etc). So, instead of trying to simulate RL, I think the game should rather be primarily inspired by legends and myths of medieval combat, and provide mechanics that make as large number of character concepts as possible viable, different and reasonably balanced. Which IMO certainly includes things like the lightly armored dagger-wielding hero or master archer being able to easily take out a bunch of polearm-wielding soldiers in full plate, despite being totally unrealistic. And besides, a game which includes magic is thoroughly unrealistic anyways, as you pointed out in your previous post.)

Sorry about the wall of text.

I would like to see... Maybe something like...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?354890-Base-Weapon-Rules-(Weapon-Training)&p=17581451#post17581451Nice, I'll go check it out!

QuidEst

2014-06-06, 01:53 PM

An actually small thing I would change in Pathfinder:
Give Sorcerers their first bloodline bonus spell at second level instead of third. Seriously, the most exciting thing that happens to a Sorcerer at level 2 is that Mage Armor lasts twice as long.

ProudGrognard

2014-06-06, 02:30 PM

Actually, this is true. Not a bad idea.