Perhaps you could introduce a Feat called “Variant Training: Choose any two Cross-class Skills. These skills now count as Class Skills for you.” That would cover those instances where players want to play a character of a certain class, but who has skills outside of the norm and knows them very well. While it doesn't suit my view perfectly(like you can ever make all the people happy all the time anyways ;) ), the Skills system is still greatly improved. Some of the racial abilities also address this issue(half-elves and humans), but it would be a good option to make available to anyone through the use of a Feat slot.
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly here. I think we (those of us who prefer a bit more organic growth to skills) should use skill points, and use the simple system for NPCs that don't really matter. I know I did basically just that for NPCs when I had full stats for them, unless they were some custom crafted masterpiece meant to survive more than one encounter with the PCs.
Cebrion wrote:
The one odd thing I noticed about the skill (flying) is that is doesn’t have any size penalty built into it. Massive creatures ought not to have the same maneuverability as tiny creatures. While this may end up being dealt with in the monster book, it still needs to be dealt with here, as you can of course have things like flying gnomes(Small), and flying, enlarged, fighters(or en-spelled flying giants or whatever). The Fly skill needs to take into account all of these varying factors for it to work well. The size of the flier is one omission that comes to mind. Simply adding the “Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8” size modifier will fix the size issue in regard to skill checks, but bigger things should also have to spend more movement to maneuver(that isn’t covered at all). An en-spelled flying ferret familiar might be able to practically turn on a dime, but a fire giant who drank a potion of flying probably can’t (speaking of which, Fly should not be a Trained Only skill, as anything can be made to fly via spell or potion). Big things should have to move at least a certain amount before being able to conduct a maneuver. Maneuverability Class handled this before, but taking it out is not a good idea and it needs to be included in some way under the Fly skill. Also, the collision section of the Fly skill should have its DC modified by the current height of the flier as well(maybe DC 25, -2 for every 100 feet of height of the flier), if you collide with something 40 feet above the ground, yes, you are probably going to crash and burn, but if you collide with something at 800 feet in the air, you have a much better chance of pulling out of your death dive in time. There is no distinction made in regard to height when a collision happens under the skill as it is written. 10 feet or 10 miles in the air, it is DC 25 or nothing. That paragraph that says you cannot avoid a fall if you are involved in a collision should therefore be removed as the above option would cover the situation. I’ll leave it to you to hammer out the details though. I’m just here to provide opinions.
Actually that's covered under manueverability in the Monster Manual/SRD. Below is the link to the tactical movement table at d20srd.org. Most creatures larger than medium have poor maneuverability, and more than a few larger than huge have clumsy. Just take a look at dragons for an example.
As to the revision of the 4 Core classes, I mostly like what I see. I think I get the gist of how Orisons are intended to work, but perhaps this re-wording would make it a bit more clear:
“Orisons (Sp): Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day. They can cast each of these prepared spells an unlimited number of times per day, at will, as a spell-like ability. The number of orisons a cleric can prepare each day is noted in Table 4-2 under spells per day. Orisons are treated like any other spell cast by the cleric in terms of duration and other variables based on level. Orisons cannot be channeled through spontaneous casting.”
If Orisons(and Cantrips) are NOT intended to work this way, please explain a bit more about how they are intended to work.
That's pretty much my own understanding on it.
Cebrion wrote:
Also, unless druids have some fantastic abilities that already give them bonuses with regards to the 4 elements and animals and plants, they should have access to two Domains the same as clerics do. I’ll have to wait and see what is done with them though. Perhaps they will have a few abilities that they will be able to make use of at will too.
I'd say that Druids are already powerful enough, and have massive amounts of options each round. Clerical options have always boiled down to "Do I heal the fighter, cast a spell, or turn undead?" Not all are available each round. I'm still unsure on the change to turning/rebuking undead, though it is highly intriguing. I see no reason why druids wouldn't have the same deal with 0 level spells that wizards and clerics have - it just makes sense. Same with Bards in that respect.
Cebrion wrote:
One other thing. Black Tentacles(Evard's Black Tentacles) used to be such a simple thing to take care of in 1e/2e. Please bring the Pathfinder version more in line with what the effect once was. Roll a simple Reflex save to avoid the tentacles or be nabbed. Strength check vs. DC 10 + caster level + ability modifier to break free, or do so much damage(tentacle has 1 hp/2 caster levels perhaps) to a tentacle to destroy it(and break free). The current damage level is just fine. It is just a royal pain to make use of this spell in-game when it has grabbed a whole crap-load of enemies. Resolving this spell each round slows the pace of the game such that even a sloth would scream "Hurry the **** up with that spell effect already!!!" Do this with Entangle too, and leave Grappling for non-spell related effects that target individuals(not groups).
I thought the Pathfinder mechanic itself is pretty straightforward. CMB+15 is the base DC to hold someone. Evard's has its bonus in the spell description. The Grapple mechanic is one of the things I most like about their rules. Its simple, elegant, and boils every grapple to a single roll, much like combat - LIKE IT SHOULD BE!! YAY! Sorry, while I understood the old rules, I am VERY happy to see the change. and rolling a grapple on that many people is no different now than rolling an attack on that many people. (And I see no reason why the DM couldn't roll one attack and compare it to all the base grapple DCs of the players, or the player do the same versus a large number of NPCs).
The biggest thing I like about their rules changes is you can stick a summary on a single page and have them there for quick reference. Of course you'll need to refer to the rules if you have a question, but once you know the rule, all you really need are the DC threshholds.
I am very glad to see this happen. I have been against 4th edition since I saw the Dragon Magazine article featuring the rogue build. I feel that the art and gameplay of the new game is too far drenched in new standards of rpgs based off of video and mmo games.
I like to keep my brands of games separate, I do not like the heavy WoW influences of 4th edition, regardless of how often I have had that point argued against.
Paizo is doing a good thing, I hope they do well with it.
Since I haven't updated to the 3.x rules I have even less taste for 4E. Even so it gladdens me to see Paizo do the reasonable thing towards their customers. If only they could have retained the rights to Greyhawk and the future would be as bright as the desert. A part of me really wishes to see WotC get burned by their business edition and the 3.x OGL proves that such an event won't be the end of the gaming business.
Gilban,
I am a 4e fence sitter. I have only seen dribs and drabs of the new rules and I don't feel that I can make a decision on whether I will like them, I will be indifferent to them, or I will hate them until I see the whole thing in front of me.
I too am gladdened by Paizo's decision to embrace and extend the 3.5 SRD. It gives me options. If I hate 4e, then I have two sources to steal rules ideas from for my 3e GH campaign.
No part of me wishes WotC ill. 4e will be the market leader for the RPG catagory (whether I like it or not) and there is no one that has the capital or the financial resources to lead the hobby if WotC were to stumble and then pull out of that segment of the gaming market.
In the short run that would be super bad for the hobby and those companies that live off the scraps that WotC leaves behind. I talked with Eric Mona after a panel at NorWesCon this weekend and he stated the same thing, there is WotC and then there is the rest of the hobby.
Personally, I think given WotC's crappy behavior towards potential 3rd party producers viz-a-vie the Game System License (GSL) has given Paizo no choice but to strike out on their own and be the master's of their destiny.
They have a little over a year to put together a rule book they can continue to publish long after the 3e WotC material is out of print. I think the Open Playtest works well with the resources they have to work with and getting, essentially, free help from the fans is a very smart move.
Even if the Pathfinder RPG bombs or doesn't have enough support to survive, they have bought themselves a year in which to scope 4e and the GSL. Their partnership with Necromancer will mean they will have contact with 4e developers. To me this is a win-win for them. Either their own edition is self-sustaining and provides them with a viable niche market or they can transition into 4e with far less uncertainty than if they roll the dice like Necromancer and Goodman have.
So, I am hoping that both editions do well. I am glad there is no one paying attention to Greyhawk right now, the setting needs a bit of fallow time where some creativity for its own sake can take root. That way if there is a Greyhawk revival, perhaps we can provide some of the people to help that along.
Also, unless druids have some fantastic abilities that already give them bonuses with regards to the 4 elements and animals and plants, they should have access to two Domains the same as clerics do. I’ll have to wait and see what is done with them though. Perhaps they will have a few abilities that they will be able to make use of at will too.
I'd say that Druids are already powerful enough, and have massive amounts of options each round. Clerical options have always boiled down to "Do I heal the fighter, cast a spell, or turn undead?" Not all are available each round. I'm still unsure on the change to turning/rebuking undead, though it is highly intriguing. I see no reason why druids wouldn't have the same deal with 0 level spells that wizards and clerics have - it just makes sense. Same with Bards in that respect.
Cleric options boil down to healing the fighter, casting a spell, turning undead, or taking part in combat.
Druids options are much the same, being healing the fighter, casting a spell, or taking part in combat(either through Wild Shaping or not), except in the combat department Druids suffer a bit due to their inability to wear more protective forms of armor and animal forms are not known for good AC either. Druids of course cannot turn undead. What is this massive amount of powers that Druids have that they can use multiples of each round? Nature sense? Woodland Stride? Trackless Step? Resist nature's Lure? Not quite the most useful of powers when one gets in the thick of it.
A Cleric can memorize a bunch of summoning spells and spontaneously change them to healing spells. A Druid can memorize a bunch of healing spells and spontaneously change them to summoning spells. Druids don't have Domain powers at all, which is something that either provides additional power choices to a Cleric or that directly affect spells that they may use each round. Clerics also get bonus Domain spells, so they also can have more memorized spells than Druids.
So, Clerics do indeed get a few more benefits than Druids do. Druids could use access to Domain powers, but I can see why that may not be the best option. It might be better to give them a few organization templates to draw powers from which would provide benefits similar to Domains/Schools. For instance, instead of a list of Domain powers there could be a list of powers representative of one of various Druidic organizations. A Dark Druids sect might have a certain list, a Nature Druids sect(the archetypal Druid basically) might have a list, and Elementalist Druids might have a list. Maybe there could be one or more other types too. This would also serve to differentiate Druids further from Clerics. Druids would of course have access to orisons in the same way as Clerics do.
Other than these things, I am most interested in seeing what Paizo does with the stat block and how much simpler it will be. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Has anyone heard any news concerning when the next part of the Pathfinder Alpha Test will be released? If they are going to release the Beta Test in August, they will need to get these other two remaining Alpha Test releases out soon so the full balance can be playtested together.
Has anyone heard when Alpha release 3 will be available from the Paizo site?
It's out now, but I'm assuming most of you know this already. Some fans are hoping that their pre-orders of the printed Beta Release will ship soon.
and add me to the list of people happy about what Paizo is doing. I'm a huge fan of their 3.5 products, and I'm eager to get get my hands on the Beta release of the Pathfinder RPG.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Do this with Entangle too, and leave Grappling for non-spell related effects that target individuals(not groups).
