Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[virgil]

Lots of people talking about how their voices were heard in the playtest, examples included stuff like Healing Kit charge uses, the current version of CMD, you no longer need to be evil to control undead, etc.

The Dragon Disciple prestige class doesn't get any natural weapons, except for a bite attack that can only be used (3+Cha mod) times per day, and apparently Draconic Bloodline sorcerers in general get a +1 damage per die ability, to make up for their 1st level attack power now doing reduced damage and only (3+Cha mod) times per day. Note, their 1st level attack power is claws. Proof that they hate sorcerers .

Hmm, Combat Expertise got altered to work similar to Power Attack. -1 atk for +1 AC, increased by a point at ever 4 BaB. They also got rid of the entire Overhand Chop/Backswing chain of feats. Cleave only takes a standard action to perform for the two adjacent attacks (if miss the 1st, auto-miss second), but it gives a -2 to AC for the maneuver.

Animated Shields work like Dancing Weapons (release, function for four rounds, returns) and had the cost reduced to +2.

It sounds like they're doing something Monte postulated a few years back, where higher bonuses on your weapon allows it to ignore other kinds of DR besides magic. It's +3 for silver/iron, +4 for adamantine, +5 for alignment. Note, they word GMW to not allow it to grant this additional DR penetration.

[hogarth]

Also:
-Arcane Archer advances spellcasting
-Arcane Trickster can be entered with 2nd level spells but loses some spellcasting levels

[Leress]

Hmm, Combat Expertise got altered to work similar to Power Attack. -1 atk for +1 AC, increased by a point at ever 4 BaB. They also got rid of the entire Overhand Chop/Backswing chain of feats. Cleave only takes a standard action to perform for the two adjacent attacks (if miss the 1st, auto-miss second), but it gives a -2 to AC for the maneuver.

What!! They got rid of the some of the only decent feats they had.

[TOZ]

Well, I actually like the Vital Strike chain, but I'm thinking of making it a combat rule instead of a feat. Although that would make it uncomfortably similiar to the scaling power damage of 4E.

[Roy]

Hmm, Combat Expertise got altered to work similar to Power Attack. -1 atk for +1 AC, increased by a point at ever 4 BaB. They also got rid of the entire Overhand Chop/Backswing chain of feats. Cleave only takes a standard action to perform for the two adjacent attacks (if miss the 1st, auto-miss second), but it gives a -2 to AC for the maneuver.

What!! They got rid of the some of the only decent feats they had.

Plus Fucking One. Also, they made Cleave even worse, and even more subject to Planned Obsolence. Of course, decent is relative given that you need to be level 17 in a gimp class just to PA for 5 points.

[Heath Robinson]

I believe that some of MGuy's premises are something like this:

1. It's impossible to create classes that are perfectly equitable in power
2. From 1; we should endavour to minimise the gap between them
3. The abilities of a class should "make sense" according to their power source
4. For 3; "make sense" means that it should seem cogent to me
5. From 3,4; "mystic" power sources can do anything because we don't have magic in the real world to demonstrate that certain things are not doable with magic
6. From 3,4; "skill" or "physical" power sources cannot do everything because we have people in the real world and no human flies unaided in the real world
7. From 5,6; the Fighter cannot do the same things that a Wizard can
8. It is acceptable for someone to trade general utility for specific utility
9. From 2,7,8; if the Fighter is not permitted to have as much general utility, then he should have significantly more specific utility
10. Fighter includes the word "Fight"
11. From 9,10; the specific utility that the Fighter should have is combat utility

MGuy, would you agree with the above chain of reasoning? If not, please indicate which parts you disagree with and modify the chain to better reflect it.

[Leress]

Why can't that same cleric Rage like a barbarian? Because he hasn't spent the time unleashing the beast and making his chest into steel like the barbarian has.

Cleric takes strength domain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I actually like the Vital Strike chain, but I'm thinking of making it a combat rule instead of a feat. Although that would make it uncomfortably similiar to the scaling power damage of 4E.

I like Vital Strike chain too, it one of the better ones since I can get rid of my shitty attacks to do something good with them.

[TOZ]

Well, I actually like the Vital Strike chain, but I'm thinking of making it a combat rule instead of a feat. Although that would make it uncomfortably similiar to the scaling power damage of 4E.

I like Vital Strike chain too, it one of the better ones since I can get rid of my shitty attacks to do something good with them.

I kind of like the idea of a monk dropping his last two attacks to deal 6d10 on his other three flurry. It's not enough, but it is something.

[hogarth]

I kind of like the idea of a monk dropping his last two attacks to deal 6d10 on his other three flurry. It's not enough, but it is something.

That's not how the final version of Vital Strike works, unfortunately. Now you get to make one (1) attack that does double/triple/whatever damage, although you can combine it with a charge.

[TOZ]

That's not how the final version of Vital Strike works, unfortunately. Now you get to make one (1) attack that does double/triple/whatever damage, although you can combine it with a charge.

I give a damn how it works in PF, it's going to work like that in TOZ's Mishmashed 3.76.

[virgil]

I don't have the book. But if it always makes it one attack, does it still only multiply base weapon damage?

[FatR]

I don't have the book. But if it always makes it one attack, does it still only multiply base weapon damage?

Looks like yes. Which makes it pretty much worthless.

[virgil]

In practice, fighters might be able to trip/grapple monsters better in 3.P. Monsters are less likely to have much of a Touch AC and PCs tend to have attack buffs floating around (which boosts CMB). Yes, they're relying on casters spending resources on them, but it's something that will happen in the fanboy's games and so they'll likely use it as evidence.

Still doesn't help the fact that fighters lost too much other stuff, and only mounted chargers and archers remain as effective options, the former still falling behind past the lower levels.

EDIT: If you want to be a wizard, be an elf. They have +2 Int, a racial Spell Penetration feat that stacks, several martial weapon proficiencies (humans lost their free one), some skill bonuses, and ultimately +2 Dex gives more than -2 Con takes (especially w/point-buy). It wasn't nearly as lopsided in 3.5, because now PF's elf is better than 3.5's grey elf.

[MGuy]

-Emerald: Well there's breaking the laws of physic and then there's breaking into scientific theory. Dimension hopping is more breaking into theory/phlebotinum then it is just breaking the laws of physics.


-Murtak: Well the end result I'm hoping for (as was done in the Tomes) is a rage that is better than "a minor boost in fighting prowess" I'm looking more for a major boost. Now your example after that is a bit extreme and I don't think you meant me to take it seriously. A barbarian who had a ghost problem honestly could pick up a cheap ghost touch weapon and bash it away.

Now if the problem is rather or not they can go on the adventure that's a bit lofty. It doesn't cost that much gold to pay someone to plane shift you. Especially if we're talking 9th-10th level plane shifting with 9th-10th level wealth. And then we'd be doing so under the assumption that the improved barbarian doesn't need to spend an exponentially increasing amount of gold on small enhancement bonuses, armor, or weapons and that instead he had gold for utility purposes like getting back and forth to whatever plane he's on and getting the proper protection put on him. I honestly hardly see a difference between wasting your highest level spell slots to put planeshift on your list twice and going to your local holy man and saying I am going the plane of inevitable doom. Here's 4000 gold. Get me a hankerchief of plane shifting that is usable twice.


-Leress: and the cleric never gets as good a rage as the barbarian does at later levels, isn't as good in melee combat as the barbarian, and gimps himself when raging because he can't cast at the same time

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you were one of those rogues that tumbled in and dual-wielded daggers, how do you make out?

Also, cleric archers. I heard that they lost a lot of their pizzower, mostly because of the Divine Power nerf.

Also, how can Polymorph not be as broken as it used to be? It looks like it kind of stinks now, only providing minor enhancement bonuses you can get elsewhere.

[MGuy]

I believe that some of MGuy's premises are something like this:

1. It's impossible to create classes that are perfectly equitable in power
2. From 1; we should endavour to minimise the gap between them
3. The abilities of a class should "make sense" according to their power source
4. For 3; "make sense" means that it should seem cogent to me
5. From 3,4; "mystic" power sources can do anything because we don't have magic in the real world to demonstrate that certain things are not doable with magic
6. From 3,4; "skill" or "physical" power sources cannot do everything because we have people in the real world and no human flies unaided in the real world
7. From 5,6; the Fighter cannot do the same things that a Wizard can
8. It is acceptable for someone to trade general utility for specific utility
9. From 2,7,8; if the Fighter is not permitted to have as much general utility, then he should have significantly more specific utility
10. Fighter includes the word "Fight"
11. From 9,10; the specific utility that the Fighter should have is combat utility

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) I'd honestly like a more concrete definition but for now I don't have anything better to describe it as so yes.
5) Mostly: From 3,4; "mystic" power sources can do anything because it can imitate the abilities of "physical" and "skill" power sources and can do things not covered by them.
6) This sounds a bit off. I'd probably say something more like: From 2, 3; "skill" and "physical" power sources can do things that are within their domain.
7) Not quite. I think it is more along the lines of: From 5, 6; A fighter shouldn't be able to do ALL the things a Wizard can
8 ) Yes
9) Almost. I'd more would lean toward: From 2,7,8; if the Fighter is not permitted to have as much general utility, then he should be significantly ahead/better in that more specific utility.
10) Yes
11) Yes

In addition to these I'd add:
A) between 7 and 8: A wizard shouldn't be able to do certain things as well as a Fighter can
B) between 8 and 9: From 2; General Utility should then be a trade for specific utility
C) between 9 and 10: From 2, A, B; if the wizard is not permitted to have much specific utility then he should have more general utility.

This seems like a nice outline. For 4 I'd like to have a more concrete definition.

[MGuy]

I'm taking all of this junk over to K's TNE thread so please direct further counters over there so this thread is freed up for its original purpose.

[ubernoob]

I'm taking all of this junk over to K's TNE thread so please direct further counters over there so this thread is freed up for its original purpose.

Please don't. K just came back. We don't need his threads clogged with the same old argument.

[MGuy]

His new thread involves what is being discussed.

[hogarth]

Also, cleric archers. I heard that they lost a lot of their pizzower, mostly because of the Divine Power nerf.

Roy was claiming that Divine Power was better because it includes a Haste effect. I guess it depends how common Haste is in your game.

Also, how can Polymorph not be as broken as it used to be? It looks like it kind of stinks now, only providing minor enhancement bonuses you can get elsewhere.

I think they changed it from enhancement bonus to size bonus (which doesn't make much sense either).

Tomorrow you'll be able to see the rules for yourself when they have their free rules website up and running a la d20srd.org (putting a hyperlinked copy of the rules on-line for free is the best idea they've had for the Pathfinder RPG so far, IMO).

[TavishArtair]

His new thread involves what is being discussed.

No, it doesn't. It involves hypothetical game design. Not D&D.

[MGuy]

... Please explain to me the particular differences between redesigning D&D and hypothetical game design is different exactly

[TavishArtair]

... Please explain to me the particular differences between redesigning D&D and hypothetical game design is different exactly

One doesn't use the D&D rules, and thus does not concern itself with the specific inadequacies of the D&D system at filling certain design goals, but rather has its own design goals.

... is that hard to understand?

[MGuy]

Considering that I am hypothetically going to be changing those inadequacies to create something like my own edition or the Tomes wouldn't the basic game design in question be part of what I'm trying to do?

[TavishArtair]

Considering that I am hypothetically going to be changing those inadequacies to create something like my own edition or the Tomes wouldn't the basic game design in question be part of what I'm trying to do?

That is basically designing in a different direction, a direction that is parallel to "Tome" design but contrary to "TNE" threads. They're considered separate projects for a reason.