Pathfinder 1E Commentary and philosophy concerning Pathfinder - feedback requested

[Edena_of_Neith]

I agree with your over all sentiments, which is why I switched to the RPG I did.

Good afternoon, Treebore. Are you referring to my ideas, or anothers? (If you are referring to mine, thanks for the support.)

PF is caught in a rock and a hard place, it has to maintain a high degree of 3E compatibility. Plus I think another problem is that people think they will use 3E to play PF, when you will actually use PF to play 3E. Now what does that mean? Well it means that you will be using the PF rule book to play 3E, so you don't have to worry about how compatible PF is with 3E, you have to wonder how compatible 3E will be with PF.

I am assuming Pathfinder is 'backward compatible' with all of the D&D editions except - apparently - 4E, and with Hackmaster, and with Castles and Crusades.
Based on this assumption, I am trying to discuss Pathfinder in Pathfinder shop talk as much as possible, and in D&D terminology otherwise.

Since all the important changes will be in your new core rule book, Pathfinder, you will be referring to PF for all your spell descriptions, combat maneuver explanations, base skill explanations, etc... NOT your old 3E DMG, PH, etc...

The only 3E stuff you will still be using are all the splat books, so their feat descriptions, new skill descriptions, new spell descriptions, etc... will still be just as viable as they are if you remain with the original 3E Core rule books.

Thanks. This confirms what I thought, that Pathfinder is backward compatible. Thanks much.

Remember, Pathfinder is going to be the new core rule books for new players, and for those who like the PF changes better than how it is done in core 3E.

Pathfinder is not meant for those who are staying 3E and have plenty of books for new players to use. Those people are set for as long as they wish to stay with their 3E core books. They should have minimal problems using Paizo adventures if they wish to have a source for new modules. Same goes with Monster Manuals such as Tome of Horrors, etc...

(puzzled)

Can you elaborate? Pathfinder is best suited for *whom* ? It is *not* meant for those who are staying 3E, yet it is backward compatible ... can you elaborate?

Paizo obviously hopes even these people will decide its just much more convenient to fully switch to using Pathfinder as "Core", so they can use such resources seemlessly, but it will still be compatible enough to use PF pretty easily with 3E as their core.

Elaborate?

I also imagine Paizo will do different lines of modules, one line will be much like any 3E module they have done, essentially sticking to pure 3E SRD type material. Other lines will be aimed at having complete control of all sources, so will have classes from any of their resources, any monsters, any PrC's, and they will have any feat or skill, allowing for even more flavorful and unique adventure scenarios and setting ideas.

It sounds like Pathfinder is very similar to 3E, really. Yet you say it is not for those who would stick with 3E. Can you elaborate further?

However, I also like not be limited to feats, and skills. So I use C&C (Castles and Crusades) which allows me to use 3E, and 4E, products. So when I use a cool 3E monster, or PF monster, or even 4E monster, their feat or power just means to me they can make either a SIEGE check to make a maneuver that gives them that bonus/power, or I can just label it as a monster ability or power, and just add it as part of some special attack, and in the case of skills simply treat it like a class skill. Which is why C&C is so compatible with other editions.

I am told Castles and Crusades is similar to 1E Dungeons and Dragons. Is this true?

Plus this allows a 1st level fighter to try anything, whether its modeled after 3E or 4E feats, or 4E powers, and no one has to track lists of feats or powers, or skills for that matter. All we use those lists for are ideas as to what kind of things we can try to do, and what kind of modifier a successful roll will give.

Note that in 1E, and apparently in C&C, a 1st level character can try anything ... but I remember that the chances of success were rather low unless you had the appropriate Non Weapon Proficiency.
From my point of view, 3E allowed more flexibility. You could try most anything at low level in 3E (you did not need skill ranks to attempt something) but if you wished to attempt something *difficult* or *professional level* in 3E, you had to buy skill ranks. This seemed reasonable to me.
I thought 3E's rules better defined (and thus protected) player characters and their capacities, compared to the NWPs of 1E (which were few and far between) and unforgiving DMs of that time ('you can try it, but good luck ... untrained, you aren't going to be able to do it!')

I admit, though, I am completely unfamiliar with the SIEGE roll. That seems a uniquely Castles and Crusades concept. If you wish to elaborate on it, please do so. I am curious!
My increased number of skill points was ... to some extent ... an attempt to duplicate what you are talking about for Pathfinder ... the ability to try more things. But *not* to do *just anything*, especially at low level. You can *try* most things, and hope for the best, but training and effort pays off, by the spending of skill points!
Or, at least, that's how I would hope it would work in general.

So even though I like what PF is doing to the 3E rules, it still doesn't allow for the "try anything" feel I fell in love with back when I started playing in BECMI and 1E D&D, so I stick with C&C as my core and I'll just keep using PF products as I want them. Not to mention good ideas in 4E.

Can you elaborate on the 'try anything' concept you are discussing?
Just 'how good' can a 1st level character *be*, in what he 'tries' at 1st level, in general? How far can he reach with his talents in all the various skills? How capable is he?
Can you explain it in skill rank terms? Can he pull a skill rank 5 in everything? A skill rank 8? A skill rank 10? A skill rank 15, for this 1st level character? (that would utter dwarf any new capabilities I have proposed, for a Pathfinder character, by the way, if a C&C character could pull a DC 15 check in everything at 1st level!)

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Good afternoon there, Azhrel.

A very reasoned statement.

But I wonder if the GM needs to be more involved in your game? For example, I played some 3.5E about a year ago in which the players didn't need/use character sheets. The GM had all the information and number crunching and the players simply stated what they wanted to do. In most cases, the GM did the dice rolling and that was it. In other cases, the GM might say, "That will be difficult for you -- you have about a 25% chance of accomplishing it" and leave it to the player to decide.

The players did not require character sheets? The DM had their sheets, or the equivalent?
Ok, fair enough. A bit of a variant, there.
More work for the DM, obviously. In my system, it would ... indeed ... add a great deal of work for him to do.

As DM, I let the players handle their own character sheets. A long story, since it involves the Human Equation, but the bottom line is they have to keep track of their character's capabilities ... and in extraordinary situations (meaning, a lot of situations) I have to adjudicate whether mere competence in a skill is enough against great odds.

I found this game style quite refreshing! It meant that as a player I could concentrate on actions and not number, on which skills on wanted to develop and not the number of ranks in those skills, and so on.

I can't comment. I've never tried this. Cheers to you and your group, though! It sounds like you have a really good thing going. : )

When the PCs leveled up, the GM provided a charsheet and the player did the level-up, spending skill points where desired and choosing feats. Then the GM updated all of the stats. (This is easier to do with a tool like DM Genie, which is what our GM was using.)

I'm not familiar with DM Genie, but any computer program that helps the (beleaguered) DM sounds like a good idea to me.

I've been thinking of running my next campaign using this same technique. But my RttToEE and Crimson Throne games are already going so it will be awhile before I get a chance to try it myself.

Best of luck with this. I hope you and the group have a good campaign. I hope you have a lot of fun. I think you will!

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

That is an interesting way to do things to be sure.

However to get the full impact of what I am saying you would have to understand how C&C works. There are (snip)

Very interesting reading. I need to read up on Castles and Crusades.

But let me ask you this. Just how far, in 3E/Pathfinder terms, does that +6 get you?
You say you add your level to the roll? So that if you are high level, you add your level to *every* roll you make? Or just certain skills?

Just how high a DC check, and in how many areas, can a 1st level C&D character achieve?
That is, could he achieve a DC 5 (hobbyist skill level, easy to do DC check), 8 (expert hobbyist, moderately easy), 10 (moderately proficient, moderately hard), 15 (quasi-professional, very hard), 20 (professional, extremely hard), 23 (prodigy, incredibly hard), or 25 (great prodigy, stupendously hard) level in something, at 1st level? If yes, in how many areas?
If he keeps trying, keeps rolling (taking 10, or taking 20, I suppose, would be the 3E equivalent?) then how well can he do, in how many areas?

Can you summarize?

It sounds like a typical Castles and Crusades character, is a very capable character. I am merely asking: how capable? Again, can you summarize? Give me DC equivalents?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Changing allotment of feats is unlikely to influence game balance much. As soon as you get a few similar feats together, you'll find out that the reasonable ones either do not stack or their use is limited by character actions. And the unbalanced ones should be weeded by GM before they enter play.

I would allow all the feats in Crystalkeep, barring a very few special exceptions (which I and the players discuss before starting out, since we simply want to have fun here.)
Social Feats won't stack, obviously. I could see a character with a lot of feats taking some of these.
Skill Feats don't stack, and could allow a starting character greater skill proficiency at something, which is nice (in my opinion.)

But feat paths do stack. My opinion. I could see an increase in character power there. Ala dodge, mobility, spring attack. But considering what 1E (and now, apparently, Castle and Crusade) characters could pull, and the fact we made it work back then, I don't see why we can't make it work in Pathfinder.

However, skill points are a different beast since reaching maximum number of ranks actually nullifies the reason for skill point system existence (just use character level instead of skill ranks to reflect this).
Of course, it would simplify game play a bit, however it would also turn everyone into an expert.

Does it?

I have said that a rogue could start with up to 128 skill points (32 x 4.) She could max out in all her class skills, yes, at 1st level.
Now she has 32 skill points per level, after 1st. I see that the rogue has about 25 class skills. So yes, the rogue could continue to stay maxed out in her skills.
The fighter, cleric, and wizard, starting with 32 points and only 8 per level, are another matter. They probably could not max out in all their skills.

But again, even if they could, what of the sub-skills I have mentioned? The sub-knowledge skills (there must be dozens of useful ones.) Sub-craft skills. Sub-survival skills (arctic, subarctic, temperate, sub-tropical, tropical, mountain, desert, ocean, wildspace, other planes, and more!) And a whole lot of other skills.
The group is *not* going to always have locals to talk with, concerning What Is Out There.
Ask Thorin and Company (from The Hobbit) just how dangerous the Unknown Road is. Ask them what it means to blunder blindly ahead. They can regale you with hair raising escapades of the result. (Heck, even *with* Elrond's advice and Gandalf's knowledge, they could not find a safe road over the Misty Mountains. Even *with* all those skill points, it was not enough!)
And although it is nice to just blunder into things and fight your way out sometimes you might just end up, like Thorin and Company, dangling as food for the Monsters (while they discuss the specifics of the matter within earshot.)

I still think skills count here! I think skills make a difference. And I think the experienced character should know a lot about a lot. Just me.

Pathfinder does a lot to decrease number of skills and increase influence of skill points expenditure. You are likley to be better off using PFRPG system.

Nah. Just House Rule for Pathfinder. It sounds like a neat enough game.
We've house ruled enough for 3E, and for earlier games.
No need to walk away from Something Good, when you can make it Even Better. (At least, Better in your own eyes.)

There is a new mechanic introduced of late by Paizo guys, achievement feats.
Basically, if you do something meaningful numerous times, you might get a free feat reflecting your experiences (for example, die by fire a few times and you may learn how to resist heat).

Interesting. It sounds reasonable to me!

You may want to add free feats and skill points (you sweep halls a few days and get a few skill points to invest into Profession (Sweeper)).

Also sounds reasonable!

Regards,
Ruemere

Hey there. Thanks for the feedback.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I agree with the sentiment that Edna's plan results in too many feats. The question that I'd like to ask is "do I have enough feats to do with my character what I want?" In general, with the RAW, I usually do, eventually. I'd often like to have an extra feat here and there, mostly to advance me more quickly to the prestige class I want, but at a certain point, the availability of a large number of feats will lead to a point of diminishing returns. Already at high levels all the math and varations can bog down play. I can't imagine what an exponential increase in feats would do.

I think the question 'do I have enough feats to do with my character what I want?' is more relevant than anything I've said. I just want satisfied players, like you do.
I really do not believe the extra feats and skills will bog things down, but again that gets into the Human Equation, and the Human Equation can defeat me and anyone else, basically, from trying anything, if it decides to be difficult enough.
I can only hope for the best Human Equation, and hope my approach improves the game further. Just do my best, and hope for the best.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm kind of in agreement, in principle at least. But three feats every level, and quadruple skill points. . . is just too much, IMO.

I *have* to be *optimistic* about the Human Equation. Because if everyone decides to be difficult (and they sometimes do) then the Human Equation is impossible to overcome, and pessimism and despair rule my thinking.
I *have to believe* that my players and myself, that we can handle the increased complexity, that it will work out. That it will fascinate and entice, that it will fire up the imagination and embolden the dreamers.
Concepts similar to mine *did* do these things, back in the 1E days, and now Treebore speaks of the tremendous capacity of Castle and Crusade characters, and how that system seems to work out well.
This gives me reason to believe my optimism has firm backing.

I've done a feat per level before, and that worked fine. A feat every odd level was my house rule for quite a while, and that was also good. Another option: a feat at every level at which you don't gain an ability score increase.

I've also done double skill points, and before that +2 for all classes. The latter was better. However, I am a fan of either a) no class and cross-class skills, or b) choose your own set of class skills for each class you take. Again, the latter seemed to work slightly better.

Doube skill points? Cheers.

Now, remember, each to their own.

I merely lay out my ideas, and let you decide if they sound useful to you. It's your game, and you should do it your way, and think your way, about these things, no?
Always do it *your way*. Always think about it *your way.*
Or, at least, that is my opinion ... that people should have the game their way, and think their way, and although presented with alternate ideas *they* should have the final say on how things will be. : )

Another thing I would do, for 3e, is boost the Fighter (e.g., a feat every level, and the inclusion of some specifically higher-level Fighter feats; maybe stunts/manoeuvres as well).

I agree ... I just think other classes deserve the boost also. And even if they do not get as much of a boost as the fighter (whose entire class depends on his feats, it seems) they should get something neat.

Regarding Pathfinder, am I right in reading that you are not familiar with the system, Edena?

Correct.

Well, if so, you can download the current rules from paizo.com - Paizo Publishing - for free! I strongly recommend doing so, even if you just pluck some ideas from it for 3e. It's very nicely done, if not to all tastes, naturally.

Thanks much! And, I believe you. It sounds like Pathfinder is a good game. I'll have a look at the URL. Again, thanks for providing it.

Just some thoughts that seemed pertinent to the issues raised.
edit --- Another interesting idea for boosting up starting characters, in terms of flexibility, is to assume that they have reached '1st Level' by going through three 0-levels, so to speak. Training, apprenticeship, little forays and journeyings, and so on. Anyway, if you look at skill points, the precedent is set. So, why not give a 'starting' character four feats, not one? You get quadruple SP at level 1; give 'em quadruple feats as well! Any thoughts on this approach (probably combined with, say, a feat per level, I suppose)?

I have played in games where we started at -3rd level (from the 1E Unearthed Arcana) and we worked up to 1st level. An interesting (sorta gritty) experience.
This would grant 4 starting feats for all characters. Which is nice ... it is a lot better than 1 or 2, in my opinion!
You would follow it with 1 feat per level?
So 4 starting feats + 1 feat per level?

I think it's a great idea. I'd find it far more fun than the usual 1 (or 2) plus 1 at 3rd/6th/9th/12th/15th/18th.

I'd give even more feats than you propose, as I noted, but between the standard RAW and my proposals, your system is a nice compromise, I think (I'd still give the fighter, fighter feats in addition, since the fighter is defined by feats far more than any of the other character classes, they having their own class abilities when the fighter has none.)

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Aus Snow, if you take your system and Gestalt it, you have something close to my proposal.

A Gestalt character has two classes for the price of one. Thus, he needs skills and feats for two classes (he HAS two classes, must maintain two classes, *hopefully* he has enough feats and skills to be competent in two classes!)
So, double the skill points and feats of your system again.

You allow for 4 starting feats + 1 feat/level.
You allow for double skill points (and all skills are standard, no double cost skills)

Gestalt this, and you get:

8 starting feats + 2 feats/level.
Quadruple skill points (all skills standard, no double cost cross-class skills)

Multiclassing in 1E and 2E was equivalent to the 3.5 Gestalt concept, and quite commonly played. So it's just a simple extrapolation. (In this case, you might rule that skill points and feats must be assigned to the appropriate classes.)

 

[Roman]

Edena_of_Neith, I highly recommend that you download the free Pathfinder RPG Beta PDF. You can find it here: paizo.com - Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

(Ignore the d21 April Fools joke when you go to that page.)

This will give you first-hand knowledge of the Beta, though bear in mind that the final product will be MORE similar to 3.5E than the Beta is.

 

[ruemere]

[...] But considering what 1E (and now, apparently, Castle and Crusade) characters could pull, and the fact we made it work back then, I don't see why we can't make it work in Pathfinder.

Hence why I agree with your approach of increased feat allotment.

[...]

The group is *not* going to always have locals to talk with, concerning What Is Out There.
Ask Thorin and Company (from The Hobbit) just how dangerous the Unknown Road is. Ask them what it means to blunder blindly ahead. They can regale you with hair raising escapades of the result. (Heck, even *with* Elrond's advice and Gandalf's knowledge, they could not find a safe road over the Misty Mountains. Even *with* all those skill points, it was not enough!)
And although it is nice to just blunder into things and fight your way out sometimes you might just end up, like Thorin and Company, dangling as food for the Monsters (while they discuss the specifics of the matter within earshot.)

Skill ranks are there to introduce diversity among characters of similar inclination. If you allow everyone to fill their ranks in the most important skills, you may as well replace skill check with trained/untrained values (trained: use character level as a bonus to roll, untrained: no level bonus to roll).

So, your character will look like this: max ranks for all important skills, some points assigned to random skills. Every Rogue will be a stealth master and so on.

This is not good, as it produces virtually identical characters.

I still think skills count here! I think skills make a difference. And I think the experienced character should know a lot about a lot. Just me.

Of course. Just don't overdo this or all your experienced characters will be very similar to each other.

Nah. Just House Rule for Pathfinder. It sounds like a neat enough game.
We've house ruled enough for 3E, and for earlier games.
No need to walk away from Something Good, when you can make it Even Better. (At least, Better in your own eyes.)

Umm. Haven't you asked for feedback while pleading lack of knowledge of the subject? Do try the skill system before judging it. We have switched to the system quite a few months ago and haven't considered changing it as it proved superior to 3.5 skill system.

Reiterating changes:
1. Several skills were rolled together to balance skill importance against each other.
2. There is no partial ranks and no cross-class skills anymore.
3. Class skill checks benefit from +3 bonus.

Here is the PFRPG list of skills:
Acrobatics
Appraise
Bluf
Climb
Craft
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Disguise
Escape Artist
Fly <-- this skill has been decreed as useless
Handle Animal
Heal
Intimidate
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (engineering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility)
Knowledge (planes)
Knowledge (religion)
Linguistics
Perception
Perform
Profession
Ride
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Spellcraft
Stealth
Survival
Swim
Use Magic Device

Old skills --> New skills:
Balance --> Acrobatics
Concentration --> Spellcrat
Decipher Script --> Linguistics
Forgery --> Linguistics
Gather Information --> Diplomacy
Hide --> Stealth
Jump --> Acrobatics
Listen --> Perception
Move Silently --> Stealth
Open Lock --> Disable Device
Search --> Perception
Speak Languages --> Linguistics
Spot --> Perception
Tumble --> Acrobatics
Use Rope —

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[DonTadow]

Allow me to make some comments here.



Obviously, it could be. It wouldn't be for me, but I concede it might be for a lot of people (especially those who are DMing, and have a far greater workload.) I myself would enjoy such an array of feats, as a player or a DM.[q/quote] Again I hear one feat a level all the time, and I don't mean to




You don't know that. As DM, I feel I could create appropriate challenges against characters armed with such a wealth of feats and skills. In my opinion, at least, most other DMs could also, and many would enjoy doing so. (My opinion.)



Even under my system, even at 20th level, they would have fewer than 110 feats, or fewer than 1 feat per *page* in that list. They would not have everything!
Even a gestalt character, with double the feats, would have to reach 15th level or so to obtain 110 feats, or 1 feat per page on that list. And the gestalt are for high powered campaigns, for special circumstances.

As for skills, there are 45 in the PH alone, and about 10x that many more published. Even with a starting number of 8 (a fighter's 2, x4 for my system, + 8 per level) would be hard pressed to obtain 1 skill rank in every skill, even by 20th level. (At 20th level, he'd have - assuming an 18 Prime Requisite, 32 starting points + 352 points for 19 levels, or 384 points, divided by 45 skills, or 8 ranks per skill - 4 ranks per skill, for skills that are cross-classed, or - thus - he'd just be a dabbler in those skills. Of course, there are about 10x as many skills counting the other publications as compared to the base 45 in the PH, so our fighter has a lot more skills than these he must choose from.)



Quite true. My answer to the Supplement Glut is ... simply ... to allow it. That's a personal philosophy, a personal thing, only. I'm not suggesting anyone else should have to do it that way. I'm saying it works for me, and it *might* work for others.



Well put.
But the players are, in the end, my friends. My job as DM, the point of my being DM, is to help faciliate them having fun. If they wish to use these feats and skills, if they consider this fun, I would not deny them such access. (I would caution them, though, that as a balancing mechanism I might give some of this Goodness to the Monsters, and they might thus be facing some serious nastiness in their encounters.)



*** Monty Cook said this? Monte Cook said that 20 to 24 feats were 'too many' ?
I have the utmost respect for Monty Cook. Could you elaborate on what he said? Could you explain in detail everything he said? I wish to hear it. ***




I would ... never ... use the word 'crazy' in the same sentence as any sentence in which I described any concept or any person in relation to anything related to gaming.

Yes, a player could eventually obtain your '2 supplements' worth of feats.
But whether this would be a disaster, or a blessing, is the question. I believe it could be both ... BUT I believe it could be a blessing, and for this reason I advocate such a system.
With Possibilities come pitfalls. The more Possibilities, the more potential pitfalls. This is my opinion. It is also my opinion that Possibility justifies the Risk.



I do not agree.
I believe the 1E approach can still work. The spirit of that approach can still work. My opinion.
I would cite Castles and Crusades as proof that the spirit of 1E is still alive and well, to make my case.




I really do approve of this. Cheers to Pathfinder.



Since Pathfinder has fewer starting feats than 3rd Edition, and skills are cheaper to buy, perhaps my 4x starting point bonus (ala 8 for fighters x Prime Requisite, 32 for rogues x Prime Requisite) is not needed as badly.



I feel they are important from a roleplaying point of view. And from the point of view of creating a 'whole' character. This is a personal take on my part, a personal view.
Even if they are not used, the player knows his character has them.



Player Characters, in my opinion, are special. They may have once been ordinary, but they are now special.
Why? Mostly events beyond their control: background, training, experiences, exposure to special insights, exposure to magic, influenced by magic or psionics, extraordinary encounters and influences.
And because they have fought and suffered, trained and dedicated themselves, for years on end, to being special.
So, they have a range of talents (feats and skills) not seen in more ordinary beings, more ordinary people. (consider the 'generic classes' in the 3E DMG, which assumes lesser training, that these 'generic classes' are more ordinary, and they are considerably weaker versions of the main classes.)



Special point here.
I would not consider someone to be a 'professional' in anything, until they had 15 ranks in something (regardless of stat bonuses.) Thus, a person who wanted to be a 'professional' violinist AND a 'professional' flutist would have to spend 30 skill points (in Pathfinder) or up to 60 skill points cross class (in 3E) to pull off this stunt.
I AGREE with you on this. Being a *true professional* in multiple professions would be a truly astonishing feat, difficult to believe. A character could do it, but even a player character - as special as player characters ARE - would have to invest a lot of time and effort to do so (such as becoming a professional violinist and flutist.)
A 'true' professional, in my book, is one who has 20 skill ranks in a Profession. Thus, 40 skill points in Pathfinder, or up to 80 in 3E D&D. That's a lot of skill points. I don't believe in giving THIS kind of thing away for free!

In my system, the rogue, if she had an 18 dexterity, would start the game with an astounding 128 skill points (32 x 4.)
But she cannot spend 40 of these points to become a 'true professional' in multiple fields!! She can only take 4 ranks (her level +3) in each.
She may be 'good' at a lot of things (a rogue should be) and 'dabble' in a huge number of things (a rogue would) but a true professional in multiple fields?
Let's see how she spends her 32 points per level after 1st. If she insists on having multiple professions at 15th level, she is going to suffer in other skills she should have been good in.

I'll explain that point now.
Does she have Knowledge, Local, 15 ranks? She should.
Does she have Knowledge, Regional, 15 ranks? She should.
Knowledge, World, 15 ranks? She should, as a 15th level rogue!
Local history? Regional history? World history? Ancient history?
How about knowledge, flora? Fauna? Geography? World flora? World fauna? World geography? Hydrological flora? Hydrological fauna? What about other worlds and planes? What about Wildspace? Isn't she well travelled? What about Planar Knowledge? Outsider Knowledge? Undead Knowledge? 15 ranks in those? Faerie Lore? Magical Creature Lore? 15 ranks in those? A rogue of high level should know about all this stuff.

If the rogue has 15 ranks in spot, search, hide, and move silently, that's wonderful. But how is she to spot, search, hide, or move silently when she doesn't know what's out there? What's over that hill? What happened in this place long ago? What happened in that area recently? What monsters live in that area? What magical beings and monsters might (or might not) exist in this area? Whether that dungeon is reputedly full of treasure, or whether it was ransacked? Or whether it is there at all (since the King is hiding all traces of it's existence, and a few special loyalists of his maintain the secret by force.)
Moving silently is great, but what if the grimlocks off the path are completely harmless ... so long as the party stays *on* the path (because the druids command them, and the King and the druids reached a truce.) Will the party know this? Will the rogue know this? Or will she blunder her group into a deathtrap, because they were a hundred miles from home and did not know something known to the most simple person in the local area?
And if a carrion crawler is approaching at night, and it is accompanied by a swarm of others, and the rogue sees the first one appear in the torchlight while her party is sleeping, will she know what it is? Will she then do the appropriate thing (such as waking her party and telling them to RUN) ? Or wake them, while curiously watching the little critters, and finding out the hard way what they are and what they can do?

Knowledge is power, some say. I think the rogue would agree with me. But there are many knowledge skills, and it is expensive to take ranks in a lot of such skills. The rogue DOES need to place points in spot, search, hide, move silently, and other class skills, and if she wants to know about things, in these as well. It is a choice she must make. If she wishes to spend vast numbers of points on *professions* as well, she will have far fewer points to spend on *knowledge* skills.
It is a compromise the rogue - and everyone else - must make, whether they have a few skill points, or a lot of skill points, to spend.



(blinks) Irrelevant question to me. This is a discussion of low level characters. High level characters have transcendant powers and abilities that dwarf anything being discussed here, concerning a mere few feats and skills.



Can you explain a Signature Move more clearly? I'm vague on the concept.



I *do* know players who would love to deal with 30, or 40, or 50 feats. Or 100 feats.
I would not call it silly. Nor would they.



Not in my opinion.
A *superheroic* campaign assumes the characters, from the start, are capable of committing feats far beyond anything within human possibility, such as with the Fantastic Four.
The feat and skill system within Pathfinder and D&D, these concern themselves with merely human feats. You have to get to Epic Feats before you get into the Ripley's Believe It Or Not category, and way into them before you get into the Superheroic.
No matter *how many* feats you had in Pathfinder or D&D, at low level, you could not duplicate Superheroics. You could not do it, if you had every single feat available to 1st level characters out of all 110 pages in Crystalkeep. You could not even come close.

Or, in short, when your character has a Balance of 70 and can walk on water, as a Balance DC check, THEN you are into Superheroics.
But being able to balance on a tightrope, falls within mere normal human capabilities.



Can someone clarify this?
You 'swap out' as in, say, dropping Dodge from the feat path, and taking Whirlwind Attack (you already have Mobility and Spring Attack) and you just ... drop the Dodge, lose it's benefits, but keep all the later feats in the feat chain anyways, and can gain new ones?
Is this what you are saying can be done, in Pathfinder?



It is not an April Fool's joke.
Nor is it ludicrious.
If I and my players use it, and we agree that it is fun and reasonable - and we all do - then it is reasonable.

Just to get out of the line item thing I'll address the more important parts straight through. I know and have met hundreds of gamers at conventions and in my gaming life. I have never met a person who wanted or could handle that many feats. Heck, most people i know who play the game tend to forget their earlier feats once they hit level 10. I do thikn the C&C idea is good for what you're looking for. I like the system, it reminds me of the first diceless campaign i played a decade ago. If you wanted more meat you could do the same thing with Iron Heroes and its stunts and challenges. But this style is not popular and not the traditional way of dungeons and dragons. Even with C&C there's a bit of copycatting that goes on in gaming sessions that makes characters less special.

As a professional RPG reviewer, i get to read and review dozens of products a month, so i have been exposed to hundreds of feats in my life. and to be honest, to many of them simply repeat what others do with more (or less) interesting flavor text. When I say, that you will be able to do everything, I mean that in the sense that with 45 feats, you could do anything you wanted to do or the character to be by at least 4th level especially with your skill thing.

Again, I am not going to discount what you find fun. If you do more power to you. But pathfinders is a game for the traditional or average dungeons an dragons player and I don't know of anyone with your eccentric taste for the game. I have heard a level a feat from gamers for years, and 20 at 20th level, that's not bad, by almost 70...

Resource management has always been apart of the game, it adds to the fantasy realism of the game. I don't know of a piece of fiction where a hero can do everything. This would be a pretty boring book to read. You as a DM would have to fiat just to make it challenging.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the game of 3.5 seems to break at level 20 or so, and what you're suggesting is to start the game off at this level... broken. Again, this is a pretty uniformed thought in the gaming world.

Your opinions seem to defy the logic that I've come across with dungeon masters. Lets look at the new 4e Dms first, who thought 3.5 was too complicated as is to run so that's half the DMs on this board right now who would hate such a system. Then you got the remaining DMs, who, so far in this thread, agree that your system is to cumbersome to handle. I think any capable dm can make challenges for anything, but would not want to struggle to continuously challenge epic level characters. As Steve Kenson, author of Mutants and Masterminds, told me when you're dealing with super character the adventures are harder to write because when you're dealing with super heroesl, they can defeat most traditional foes. So instead, you have to create situational challenges.

As a DM your job is to facilitate a game, sure their your friends, but no rule book says that the job of a dm is to be best buds with your player. If you have a problem saying no, you're going to be a pretty crappy DM, because you'll ignore the boundaries of the game. And that's most important. I'm the last person who will say i'm more of a gamest , but i do believe that the game eliminate of rpgs is significant and the game should not be ignored.

There are many who still play 1e or 1e type games, and the lack of structure bolds well wit some groups. C&C is fun, for a certain group. But the point of RPGs is that you play a character who grows throughout the adventure. There's no growth with your system. Again, once you hit 4th level, you can do everything a 20th level character could do. In my last campaign, exodus, i gave players a feat just every level, and I had a player "break" the campaign with the perfect combo at level 12 (we're talking 12 feats). This is what happened, he'd sit back and attack an army by himself on his initiative, and then the others had nothing to do on their initiative.

You touch on where these powers come from, and looking at a typical adventure it usually lasts 6 to 12 months in game time. It already yis a stretch to believe that complex magics and maneuvers can be balanced in this time, Now you're talking about multiplying that by 3x. From a role playing point of view your system breaks the believablity barrier too much. From a gamist point of view you've created a game far too easy to challenge any player without yourself fiating things.

It seems you are tryng to boost the power level of D&D, which does not work. You mention that a professional violnist has 18 ranks, meaning now that all of your working NPCs who are good at anything are at least 18th level in pathfinder (15th in 3.5). So everyone in your world is super good at alot of things with heroes being the superheroes of the supers?

Again, if this works for you more power to it, I just wanted to explain why a professional gaming company would never take Dungeons and Dragons in your direction. YOu seem strong in thinking that this could work, and by all means if your friends are happy then do whatever you wish.