Pathfinder 1E Commentary and philosophy concerning Pathfinder - feedback requested

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm going to come off as completely out of line here. I haven't played Pathfinder. I don't know much about it, except that it seems to be heavily compatible with 3rd Edition D&D. And it seems to be pretty popular, and Paizo is supporting it.
So my apologies beforehand.

3rd Edition D&D was a great game, and Paizo is a great company, so I'm betting Pathfinder is a great game.

But, in my opinion, 3rd Edition had a problem. The problem was, the players did not have access to enough of the Goodness. If this was a problem with 3rd Edition D&D, perhaps it will be a problem with Pathfinder?

This is strictly my personal take on the matter, and I honestly do not believe it is shared by anyone else (by that, I mean - literally - anyone else. If I am proven wrong, I am proven wrong.)

In 3rd Edition D&D, there ended up being 110 pages of feats, as shown over on the Crystalkeep site, and the 3.5 OGL site.
But 3rd Edition only allowed 1 feat at the start, plus 1 if you were human, plus one at levels 3/6/9/etc., and the usual fighter and metamagic feats.

In *2nd Edition D&D*, a fighter could fight with a weapon in both hands at -2 / -4, and dexterity easily took care of those penalties. If he specialized, he gained 3 attacks per round immediately. All at full attack bonuses (THAC0.)
Ultimately, a 15th level fighter with a weapon in both hands and weapon specialization had 5 attacks per round (5/2, doubled.)
If a Haste was thrown on him, he aged a year, but now he had 10 attacks per round.
*At that time* amongst the groups I played with, nobody had any problem with this (or, fighting power even greater than this.) This was Business as Usual.
Same with the other classes, at that time.

But in 3rd Edition, it would have taken a lot of feats to emulate this. Two-Weapon Style Specialization, Ambidexterity, Off Hand Specialist, Improved Two-Weapon Style Specialization, Off Hand, Greater Two-Weapon Style Specialization. It would have taken nearly all the feats a fighter was allowed, simply to emulate something he *already had* in 1st edition.

This is why, in other threads, I advocated a starting number of feats (quite a large number of them) + 3 feats per level.
Now the fighter could do what he did in the earlier editions, and try other things. 3rd Edition was about choice, so I wanted the fighter to have choice. I didn't want him to spend all his feats on something he innately had in earlier editions.

Skill Points ... same thing.
I quadrupled the skill points for all classes. There are 45 basic skills in the PHB. Most are cross-class for most classes. But I thought characters should be able to have a diversity of skills. Why not? They are Player Characters, and they are reasonably special people. (Or they should be.) Even if they are simply your average person who struck it rich, they have *become* special people by dint of hard work and luck and adventuring, and they should have the skill points to reflect that they have made themselves into special people.

You have feats and skill points in Pathfinder, so this is directly relevant to Pathfinder.
If I were to DM a Pathfinder game, based on what I'm hearing about Pathfinder, I would do the same thing: grant a lot of starting feats + 3 feats per level, and quadruple skill points (if Pathfinder offers fewer skill points than 3E did, then more than quadruple.)
Why? For the same reasons as in 3E: choice. Access to all the Good Stuff that has accumulated over the years, compliments of the hard work of the game designers.

Heck, the game designers went to the effort to create all this. Why not honor their efforts, and grant greater access to their work, to the players?

Even *my* system is stingy, according to my own testing. It still does not grant nearly enough feats or skill points, considering the vast array of what is available.
Even the Gestalt version of my system, which *doubles* feats and skill points *over and beyond* what I have described, is *still* stingy, compared to the enormous array of feats and skills available out there, in 3E.
I must assume Pathfinder offers this array to it's players. I would - simply put - give them great access to it.

The players still won't have everything. Even with the most generous concoction I ever came up with, they could not obtain - not even by 20th level - more than a fraction of what is available.
But they could obtain enough to very broadly generalize, fleshing out characters, giving them greater definition and life. (Yes, they could min/max, and inevitably will, but monsters can min/max too, which balances out such approaches. A character created with a broad array of skills and feats, is much more interesting to roleplay, in my opinion, than a one-trick pony.)

I'm not here to tell anyone how to play, or how Pathfinder should be.
I merely give my opinion, my philosophy, concerning how to approach the game and try to make it fun.
Yes, there will *always* be players who are loud, argumentative, rules-lawyers, and munchkins, but you'll have that in *any* situation where you interact with other people for long enough (don't we all know that!)

The challenge of dealing with other people is an extremely complex one, and it is a separate subject from the actual Game Theory I have been trying to discuss. People Theory is another matter.
It may or may not be possible for the poor DM to overcome the People Theory problem. He may be deluged and the game go under. But I would blame that on the problems inherent with People Theory, not on Game Theory. And it is Game Theory that I am trying to address here.

I appreciate that even 1 feat per level is considered extremely 'powerful.' It was in the Book of Experimental Might (which implies 'power' if anything does.) So 3 feats per level must seem pretty astonishing and over the top (I'm sure everyone will agree with that.)
But if you go to Crystalkeep, and look at the 110 pages of feats, you'll see that all those feats wouldn't stretch very far if you started taking Social and Skill and General Feats, would they? In fact, by 20th level, you would still not even average a feat *per page* out of those 110 pages, even with my most generous Gestalt system.
If it applied to 3E, I'm betting it applies to Pathfinder.

I know Pathfinder is a fun game (or people wouldn't be playing it.)
I just think Pathfinder should be the funnest game possible. This is up to the DMs and players of Pathfinder - *I do not presume to tell anyone how to play Pathfinder!!*
I merely comment that my approach *might* have merit, because it *might - just might* increase the fun for everyone.

Now, what do you think? (if you wish to let me have it, please do have your say. I want to hear your feedback - even if it is scathing or rebuking. Or, just tell me I am just plain wrong. But I *do* wish to hear what you have to say, concerning my approach.)

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

To the Admins

(apologetic look)

I cannot 'shop talk' about Pathfinder. I don't know enough about Pathfinder to do it.
So I am trying to relate to Pathfinder in D&D terms. I understand enough D&D terminology to discuss it from that perspective ... and since Pathfinder and D&D seem to be similar, it appears to be a relevant approach.

I am trying to discuss Pathfinder, and this is the forum for that.
I was not trying to discuss D&D in this forum. This is not the forum for that.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[DonTadow]

To the Admins

(apologetic look)

I cannot 'shop talk' about Pathfinder. I don't know enough about Pathfinder to do it.
So I am trying to relate to Pathfinder in D&D terms. I understand enough D&D terminology to discuss it from that perspective ... and since Pathfinder and D&D seem to be similar, it appears to be a relevant approach.

I am trying to discuss Pathfinder, and this is the forum for that.
I was not trying to discuss D&D in this forum. This is not the forum for that.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

Pathfinder allows a feet every 2 levels, allowing a total of 10 feats (normal) by epic level. Most of the classes have bonus feats every 5 or so levels, meaning that an average character will have between 10 to 15 feats before epic level.

Throw in The book o experimental might 2, which allows fighters not only their usual take a feat every level, but the ability to change out feats they no longer use and you have the options you seem to have wanted from 3.5

There's no way you can compare a modern rpg to 1st edtion. Its like comparing old magic the gathering decks to new ones. 1st edition and to an extend 2nd would be considered broken by todays standards. Despite being loads o fun back in the day

I am not sure I get your argument on skills, it seems that your suggestion is that every player should be able to have every skill maxed simply because they are adventurers, and that just doens't work from a party balance point o view. I took a view of my current party, at 7th level, and even in pathfinder they are pretty much able to, as a group accomplish 10th level traps and challenges on average.

My thought is that this must be an april fools joke, as 4xing the power level of a current d&d player means 4xing every encounter just to provide a challenge. And though there are players who play the game to have the best character, there are others who play for the challenge,m others who play or the RPGing and a dozen other reasons why people play. Your game would be great for the power gamer, but the average d&d player would quickly get bored and leave for some more normal pastuers

I know a guy who lives near me and has , essentially, sent so many gamers my way. He thinks a lot like u, in that the fun of the game is in super characters, and runs games where he has all his players play gesalt characters starting at epic level. Unfortunately, as noted on this bored, without a sklled DM, the game is broken at mid epic level and thus his players have no real fun rolling 16 dice a turn.

I'm not dissing u or your system, but it only works for one kind of player attempting to do it in D&D. What I would suggest is trying several of the systems onthe market that do not have limitations on skills, essentially a player has "skills" and they roll with the dm factoring in the apprpriateness at their level.

 

[Kerrick]

But, in my opinion, 3rd Edition had a problem. The problem was, the players did not have access to enough of the Goodness. If this was a problem with 3rd Edition D&D, perhaps it will be a problem with Pathfinder?

Yes and no. I think that maybe the players didn't have enough access... but there was also too much of the goodness. 3E/3.5 suffered from the same problem 2E had - supplement glut. 110 pages of feats is just an example of the sheer amount of material we, as players, have to choose from. The core rules were written with the core books only in mind - in that mindset, 1 feat/3 levels is plenty (though some could argue that going 1/2 levels might be better; I dunno).

In *2nd Edition D&D*, a fighter could fight with a weapon in both hands at -2 / -4, and dexterity easily took care of those penalties. If he specialized, he gained 3 attacks per round immediately. All at full attack bonuses (THAC0.)
Ultimately, a 15th level fighter with a weapon in both hands and weapon specialization had 5 attacks per round (5/2, doubled.)
If a Haste was thrown on him, he aged a year, but now he had 10 attacks per round.
*At that time* amongst the groups I played with, nobody had any problem with this (or, fighting power even greater than this.) This was Business as Usual.

Yeah... but compare a) what else that fighter could do in 2E vs. 3E; and b) how much his damage output has increased between editions as a result. In 2E, magic items were (in the core books, at least) a lot rarer and less varied. In 3E, he could have two +3 flaming keen ghost touch rapiers of speed. Imagine the havoc he could wreak with those in 2E, with 5 attacks/round. Hell, I've seen it myself (not those exact weapons, but I had a ranger with a frost brand and a flame tongue, and I could dish out a LOT of damage). Now we have things like Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Combat Reflexes, sneak attacks... and that's just from the PHB.

But in 3rd Edition, it would have taken a lot of feats to emulate this. Two-Weapon Style Specialization, Ambidexterity, Off Hand Specialist, Improved Two-Weapon Style Specialization, Off Hand, Greater Two-Weapon Style Specialization. It would have taken nearly all the feats a fighter was allowed, simply to emulate something he *already had* in 1st edition.

Off-Hand Specialist wasn't in the PHB, and you could never get better than -2/-2 with two weapons in 3E or 3.5. But, see above.

Skill Points ... same thing.
I quadrupled the skill points for all classes. There are 45 basic skills in the PHB. Most are cross-class for most classes. But I thought characters should be able to have a diversity of skills. Why not? They are Player Characters, and they are reasonably special people. (Or they should be.) Even if they are simply your average person who struck it rich, they have *become* special people by dint of hard work and luck and adventuring, and they should have the skill points to reflect that they have made themselves into special people.

Pathfinder uses a 1:1 system. That is, ALL skills are worth one point, class skill or not. Unfortunately, they didn't boost the skills for the 2+Int classes, but it still allows for a lot more skill diversity.

Heck, the game designers went to the effort to create all this. Why not honor their efforts, and grant greater access to their work, to the players?

Question: Would you allow the players unfettered access to any feat they could find?

Even *my* system is stingy, according to my own testing. It still does not grant nearly enough feats or skill points, considering the vast array of what is available.

It's all a matter of what you let the players use. If you allow them access to any feat ever written, then sure - you might need 3/level. Those of us who use core books only, or core books + a few supplements, see nothing wrong with the 1/3 or 1/2 system.

The players still won't have everything. Even with the most generous concoction I ever came up with, they could not obtain - not even by 20th level - more than a fraction of what is available.

The players shouldn't have everything - that leads to boredom and dissatisfaction. How do you DM for a group that is so powerful? How do you challenge them? They'd be akin to demigods by L15 - 45+ feats each, hundreds of skill points... not to mention it would be very hard to RUN such a character - you'd have to keep track of all that!

I cannot 'shop talk' about Pathfinder. I don't know enough about Pathfinder to do it.

I'm not an admin, but I felt the need to chime in anyway. You can get the beta for free, and thus actually see how Pathfinder works.

I am trying to discuss Pathfinder, and this is the forum for that.
I was not trying to discuss D&D in this forum. This is not the forum for that.

Eh, we freely discuss PF vs. D&D here - there are a couple threads on that already.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(speaks in a quiet, congenial tone)

Hey there, Don. I would reply to some of your comments.

Pathfinder allows a feet every 2 levels, allowing a total of 10 feats (normal) by epic level. Most of the classes have bonus feats every 5 or so levels, meaning that an average character will have between 10 to 15 feats before epic level.

Thus, a fighter of 20th level would have 24 feats (10 for levels, 10 for fighter feats, and 4 for bonus feats.) Other classes would have 14 feats (10 for levels, and 4 for bonus feats.)
With my approach, a 20th level character would have 68 feats (11 starting, and 57 for levels.)

Of course, in 3E fighter begins with 5 free feats - the 3 armor feats, 2 weapons feats, and the shield feat, already. Add in the standard starting feat, plus the starting feat if he's human, and a fighter begins the game with 7 feats! (5 pre-chosen for him.)
I merely grant that (plus 4 more, for a total of 11) to all the other classes, and the fighter gets a bonus over and above what he already had (but then again, the fighter has a hard road to toe.)

Gestalt? That's high powered. It's the 'best of' two classes. I merely double the feats to allow the player to select feats for two classes (after all, he *does* have two classes, and should be capable in both of them.)

I approve of the increased number of feats in Pathfinder that you describe. Cheers! I just wish they'd hand out even more feats than that (such as, the 1 feat per level, in the Book of Experimental Might I.)

Throw in The book o experimental might 2, which allows fighters not only their usual take a feat every level, but the ability to change out feats they no longer use and you have the options you seem to have wanted from 3.5

I don't know what to think of this concept. I am accustomed to feat paths (such as Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack) and it seems like all the previous feats had some use (admittedly, though, if you can drop Dodge and swap it for Whirlwind Attack, despite the fact you needed Dodge for that feat path, THAT'S going to be useful! LOL.)

There's no way you can compare a modern rpg to 1st edtion. Its like comparing old magic the gathering decks to new ones. 1st edition and to an extend 2nd would be considered broken by todays standards. Despite being loads o fun back in the day.

(solemnly)

I appreciate that many of the older concepts are considered Broken by most people today.
However, I do not consider most of the older concepts to be Broken (such as the fighter concept I described in the OP.) I consider them to be viable concepts that could be brought forward into Pathfinder or 3rd Edition.

It is *anyone's* right to believe that any concept in the older (or any) edition of the D&D game is broken. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I just happen to feel that these older concepts are worthwhile, and some would be a lot of fun if extrapolated forward.
For example, in 1E magical armor was weightless and encumberless. I'd bring that concept forward in a heartbeat. But then again, I'd bring forward the concept of Item Destruction from 1E, so that magical armor would be subject to destruction from attacks. Just my take on things.

In this sense, I am doing a 'comparison' of the older material to the new. I guess it could be called a comparison. (considers that)

I am not sure I get your argument on skills, it seems that your suggestion is that every player should be able to have every skill maxed simply because they are adventurers, and that just doens't work from a party balance point o view. I took a view of my current party, at 7th level, and even in pathfinder they are pretty much able to, as a group accomplish 10th level traps and challenges on average.

Well, ok: If a player took the quadrupled points (especially since I would keep the starting 4x bonus - only I would make it any stat, not just Intelligence, assuming it was your character's Class Prime Requisite Skill) then he could probably 'max out' on his Class Skills (especially if he had relatively few Class Skills.)
Or, he could take other skills.
A wizard, in 3E, for example, could spend 2 points per skill rank to take skills in Ride, Swim, and Climb. This might be useful, since the party fighters are not going to always be there to help the wizard. Swimming across a frigid, rapidly flowing underground river is a high DC check! (if the wizard is having to carry a wounded fighter, it's going to be a lot higher yet.)
Profession allows a character to have a hobby (5 ranks in flutist, for example) or an actual semi-profession aside from his adventuring career (10 ranks in flutist, or for a more true professional, 15 ranks.) But how about blacksmithing, for a rider who wants new horseshoes for his mount? Cobbling, for any adventurer on the road? Tailoring, same thing. Fletcher, for the archer. Just about any profession, for the rogue. A lot of ranks in music and storytelling, for the bard (as well as perform.) Something appropriate for the cleric and druid. And so on?
And there are a ton of knowledge skills. No end to knowledge skills. Local. National. Regional. Continental. World. Wildspace. Other worlds. Flora. Fauna. Monsters/magical creatures. Undead. Outsiders. The Planes. History. Ancient History. Languages. You could drop a hundred points into the knowledge skills and never find them!
Craft. But craft what? Woodworking? Metalworking? Bookbinding (something every wizard should have.) Papermaking? (Also something every wizard should have.) Leatherworking? You know, a character who is going to build something needs a lot of different skills. If he has access to a town/city and thus a whole field of artisans and craftsmen, that's great. But what if he's stuck out hundreds of miles in the Dreaded Wilderness, and needs something?
And all this, above and beyond the 45 skills in the 3E Player's Handbook alone (if you add in all the skills from other books, it's a lot more skills than that, many times that number of skills, not counting anything I've said above.)

If you consider this, you'll see that yeah, you can max out on a few 'class' skills, and you'll be really good at those few things (although at low level, you still won't be very good at them, due to the limit of 3 ranks over your level rule.)
But you won't be very good at anything else, and adventuring can require a Jack Of All Trades level of competence (and if the party rogue is dead or injured, so much for obtaining her help in doing all that for you!)

My thought is that this must be an april fools joke, as 4xing the power level of a current d&d player means 4xing every encounter just to provide a challenge.

No. It is *NOT* an April Fool's Joke.
And yes, the monsters would obtain 4x the feats and skills. It is only fair. It balances out the greater power of the characters.
Greater choice means a more dangerous campaign world. But that's always been true, in any game.
The point I was making is that, greater choice *could* mean greater fun.

And though there are players who play the game to have the best character, there are others who play for the challenge,m others who play or the RPGing and a dozen other reasons why people play. Your game would be great for the power gamer, but the average d&d player would quickly get bored and leave for some more normal pastuers

The best character? What is the best character?
Is the best fighter the guy who can make all those attacks I described in the OP? Or is the best fighter someone who is a great archer? A great horseman? A great gladiator? A cunning and skilled scout? A devout paladin armed with supernatural powers?
The point of more feats is not to make a more powerful character, but a more *complete* character, a more *fleshed out* character, and to grant more flexibility in creating such vividly described characters.
The *best* character is - in my opinion - a matter of subjective thinking. Every player is going to have a different opinion on this.

Boring?
In my experience, the game is only as good as the DM, and this falls under the category of the Human Equation, or People Theory as I put it in the OP.
Just my opinion, but I think that if the players try to make it a good game, and the DM tries, it will be a good game. The point of more feats and skills was simply to expedite - to use the game mechanics to aid - them in having a good game.

A power game? Some enjoy that. Many don't.
A game where everything is a pushover? I am guessing that would be a bore to the players. Monty-Haul? Again, I believe that would bore everyone.

There is no reason that more feats and skills *have* to lead to a Monty Haul game, in my opinion. Players get to choose what they want for their characters, right? They can choose the Monty Haul approach ... or choose a different route. This is up to them.
If Monty Haul games are a crashing bore, and apparently they are to most people - they are to *me* - then why would the players want to go in that direction with the extra feats and skills? What's the point? It is counterproductive.

I know a guy who lives near me and has , essentially, sent so many gamers my way. He thinks a lot like u, in that the fun of the game is in super characters, and runs games where he has all his players play gesalt characters starting at epic level. Unfortunately, as noted on this bored, without a sklled DM, the game is broken at mid epic level and thus his players have no real fun rolling 16 dice a turn.

I'm not dissing u or your system, but it only works for one kind of player attempting to do it in D&D. What I would suggest is trying several of the systems onthe market that do not have limitations on skills, essentially a player has "skills" and they roll with the dm factoring in the apprpriateness at their level.

I don't know what would work with Pathfinder. I can only guess, especially since I do not know Pathfinder hardly at all.

I do feel, however, that the lack of feats and skills (as per the core rules) in 3rd Edition D&D hurt that game. That's my opinion only. I believe that 3E would have been better served, been more entertaining, if the core rules had handed out far more feats and skills.
Thus, I advocate this for Pathfinder, since it seems to be a game in which concepts like feats and skills work in a way similar to that of 3rd Edition.

So here I am, advocating quadrupled skill points (and 4x starting, based on the Prime Attribute and not just Intelligence), and 11 feats starting (compare to the 3E fighter's 7 starting feats, pre-chosen and granted) + 3 feats per level, for all classes.
I'm not saying they're going to do that. In fact, I'm sure they aren't going to do that. I'm not even sure that it *would* be better if they did that, myself. I merely think it *might* make for a better game, if it were tried.

If the fighter at 20th level, in the Pathfinder RAW, has 24 feats (more than 1 per level), plus he can 'swap out' lesser feats for greater feats, then it seems that for the fighter in Pathfinder, at least, a situation exists where he has something approaching the kind of flexibility and choice I am advocating.
Does this work out? Has it worked out? I don't know. I've never talked with anyone who plays Pathfinder who has used the Book of Experimental Might II. So, I'd have to ask if anyone out there has ever tried these rules, and how they worked out for them?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hey there, Kerrick. Good afternoon to you.
Just some thoughts on your post. The usual ... just commenting on your comments. : )

Yes and no. I think that maybe the players didn't have enough access... but there was also too much of the goodness. 3E/3.5 suffered from the same problem 2E had - supplement glut. 110 pages of feats is just an example of the sheer amount of material we, as players, have to choose from. The core rules were written with the core books only in mind - in that mindset, 1 feat/3 levels is plenty (though some could argue that going 1/2 levels might be better; I dunno).

Well put.
'The core rules were written with the core books only in mind - in that mindset, 1 feat/3 levels is plenty.'
Well put!!

And then, over the years, the supplementary material stacked up, and in the end we had ... 110 pages of feats!
What to do, now?
It is a problem. I do not pretend to have the answers to it. Heck, I don't even know where to begin, in most cases. ('Hey, Mr. DM, I've got this new supplement from (somewhere out beyond Pluto) and I shall kill your monsters with it, and stomp the dungeon flat, and all in 5 rounds!!!')

(sheepish look)

I don't know what to do or say. You are a DM. A literal ton of supplementary material is dumped on you. You'd have to be a genius with a photographic memory to hope to know it all. And the players keep finding *more*, while they may or may not understand what they already *have.*

All I can say is, we just try to do our best, no? Isn't that all we can do? Our best? And have fun? That's the best answer I have. Honestly, I don't have a better answer than that one. I never did.

The point of the suggestion of extra skills and feats is merely my way of saying: I, personally - this being my own opinion only - think this would be more fun.
But I don't know that. I don't even know the Pathfinder game, except as it relates to 3E.
So, I can only suggest theoretically, and wonder if it would really work. *I think it would work* or I wouldn't suggest it, but whether it would *actually* work is unknown to me.

Yeah... but compare a) what else that fighter could do in 2E vs. 3E; and b) how much his damage output has increased between editions as a result.

It is Apples And Oranges, I know. I appreciate it. So, my comparison is pretty shaky.
I tried to 'duplicate' the 2E fighter using the 3E feats, to make a point about feats. I tried to show that the 3E fighter should have had more feats, as a result, and the other classes should have had more feats also.
*I* feel my point has merit (or I would not have presented it.) However, it is Apples and Oranges, and I concede that.

In 2E, magic items were (in the core books, at least) a lot rarer and less varied.

Well put. And they could be much more easily destroyed, too.
Of course, some of them were much more powerful than the 3E equivalent, such as the Girdle of Giant Strength.
Magic items in 2E versus 3E are Apples and Oranges too, I think.
Pathfinder? I do not know the approach they take to magic items. But *I* would incorporate magic from the various editions of D&D (such as weightless magic armor) into Pathfinder. Just me. I think it would be fun for my players.
Just commenting.

In 3E, he could have two +3 flaming keen ghost touch rapiers of speed. Imagine the havoc he could wreak with those in 2E, with 5 attacks/round.

Well put, and very true. Ghost Touch is a 3E concept. (LOL ... we all would have LOVED to 'ignore armor' with our attacks in 1E and 2E!!!!)
I'll do you even better: In 3E, if you bring the 2E Haste forward, it would grant an extra *Full Round* to everyone. It would age everyone a year, but what fighter wouldn't love TWO Full Round Attacks per round, or all the possible combinations of standard and move actions he could get in the time of 'two' full rounds?
It's Apples and Oranges (I think) with a Nightshade Twist! It can become *extremely* messy, when you stack effects together! (What ... my fighter gets 4 or 5 Attacks of Opportunity this round per person, against 3 or 4 targets, because of Haste and this feat and that skill, and this contingency and because he did that, and ...)

Hell, I've seen it myself (not those exact weapons, but I had a ranger with a frost brand and a flame tongue, and I could dish out a LOT of damage). Now we have things like Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Combat Reflexes, sneak attacks... and that's just from the PHB.

Well put, and I believe you. I've seen it too. Min/maxing can produce ghastly results.
And, of course, we have min/maxing (we have it, or the term wouldn't exist! : D )

(muses)

My answer? If the players can min/max, so can my monsters. And they *will* do so, if the players do so. Fair is fair.
So, let's say your fighter has 7 attacks with heavy bonuses and whatnot. Well, that monster has special attacks too, and special Attacks of Opportunity, and it has Green Viper Style, and it has Improved Initiative AND Lightning Initiative, and it gets extra bonuses as it goes down in hit points.
If the party can bring in the 2E Haste, so can my monsters. And they will. If THAT doesn't make a group shudder (the idea of a powerful monster that already got many, many attacks, getting an extra Full Round Action each round, every round) then I don't know what will.

Off-Hand Specialist wasn't in the PHB, and you could never get better than -2/-2 with two weapons in 3E or 3.5. But, see above.

My bad here. I allowed that you could eliminate all penalties for two weapon fighting, in 3E.
I am curious. You've got my curiosity up: where is the rule on this? Where does it specify you must stick with the -2 / -2? Just asking.
Is this a rule in Pathfinder?

Pathfinder uses a 1:1 system. That is, ALL skills are worth one point, class skill or not. Unfortunately, they didn't boost the skills for the 2+Int classes, but it still allows for a lot more skill diversity.

Cheers for Pathfinder. I approve. I really DO approve. Just me, but I think that's a really good thing they've done.
Even given that, however, I'd quadruple the skill points. I would want my players to feel free to flesh out their characters, give them a wide range of skills here and there (or max out in some skills, while having a little skill in a lot of things.)

Question: Would you allow the players unfettered access to any feat they could find?

No.

If you combine the feats Irresistible Spell with Material Sacrifice, a 7th level wizard casts spells that allow no saves everytime. Period.
If you allow Spellfire into the game, the characters are magical batteries (and Spellfire is supposed to be rare.)
Feats from Dark Sun aren't going to fit into the Forgotten Realms. Feats unique to Birthright won't work in Greyhawk.

This is a matter of the DM and the players talking it out, from my point of view.
From my point of view, the DM is another *player* who has happened to volunteer to be the DM for this game (or campaign.) He is sacrificing so his *friends* can have fun. This is strictly a discussion between *friends* on how they are going to have the most *fun.*

If something is obviously going to wreck the fun, a good discussion concerning this matter, and careful consideration of it's implications, is warranted, don't you think? It is just my opinion, but I'd sit and talk with my players concerning such things, concerning what rules we were using, before we started play!

It's a complicated subject, because it involves People Theory, but the point is for *friends* to have *fun*, and one of them - who has volunteered to be the DM and the others have concurred - is trying his best to enable this to happen. Or so ... we can hope this is the situation.
In tournament or RPGA play, things are slightly different, of course. But that is a different discussion.

It's all a matter of what you let the players use. If you allow them access to any feat ever written, then sure - you might need 3/level. Those of us who use core books only, or core books + a few supplements, see nothing wrong with the 1/3 or 1/2 system.

Here's one for you, just as an idea.
I have access to Crystalkeep. I tell this to my players. They all have computers (fortune of fortunes!) and they all have access to Crystalkeep.
We - after a discussion - agree to use the feats at Crystalkeep. All 110 pages of them. But we also decide to *only* use the feats at Crystalkeep, not any others.
And so, we will be starting the game with those feats. Since everyone has access to the site, it helps out greatly (although it does not fully address the problem of dealing with 110 pages of feats, obviously. That's a given.)
If someone does not have computer access, cannot access Crystalkeep, we have a much more serious problem, but fortunately in this case everyone does.
So we go with it.
That's one possible (and in my opinion, workable) answer to the situation.

Since selecting 11 feats could involve mistakes (obviously) I'd allow the players, over the next several games, to 'take back' their choices and take new ones. Why not? It's all about experimenting and having fun doing so. I'm not going to 'force' anyone to stick with a decision they are regretting. That's not fun.

The players shouldn't have everything - that leads to boredom and dissatisfaction. How do you DM for a group that is so powerful? How do you challenge them? They'd be akin to demigods by L15 - 45+ feats each, hundreds of skill points... not to mention it would be very hard to RUN such a character - you'd have to keep track of all that!

Demigods? I doubt it. The ability to do a lot of damage does not elevate one to demigod status.
When I was a kid, I witnessed a duel between a 75th level wizard and a 14th level assassin. Except the 14th level assassin never showed up. The super powerful wizard stood there waiting ... and the earwig the assassin had left climbed up, got in his ear, burrowed into his head, and killed him.
He proved very mortal after all. : )

However, the matter of the game remaining fun at high level is another matter.
A lot of people, apparently, report that the game seems to stop being fun after around 10th to 12th level. Why? The reports vary, and I am not quite sure ... except it seems the DM can no longer challenge the players. And that would kill a game for sure, obviously.

If more skill points and feats would make the group more unchallengable, and lessen the level at which the DM is no longer able to cope with their might, and offer a fun challenge to the group, that would be a very bad thing. : (

I would merely hope that the extra feats and skills would be used to flesh out characters, improve roleplaying opportunities, grant some abilities the players cherish and want (characters should be special, in my opinion), and make the characters more fun to play.
But min/maxing until the DM is overwhelmed? What's the point? Yeah, that would be bad ... and I would hope that a good group would appreciate the danger, and avoid going down that path.

I would not FORCE the group to *not* have choices, because they *might* misuse them to min/max the DM into a ruined game.
I would OFFER the group a *lot* of choices, and hope they *would not* misuse the wealth of choice to min/max the DM into a ruined game.
Just my take.

I'm not an admin, but I felt the need to chime in anyway. You can get the beta for free, and thus actually see how Pathfinder works.

Thanks much! Will do that.

Eh, we freely discuss PF vs. D&D here - there are a couple threads on that already.

I cannot stress it too much: I am not trying to discuss D&D here. This is not the D&D Forum!
I am trying to discuss *Pathfinder.*

Unfortunately, I am *only* able to discuss Pathfinder from a D&D perspective for the good reason I know so little of Pathfinder (I am learning a lot about it from this thread!)

As I learn more about Pathfinder, I will shift into 'shop talk' about Pathfinder. Because that's what this forum is for: discussing Pathfinder. Not D&D.

(sheepish look again)

Just trying to discuss Pathfinder in the few ways I know how.

 

[DonTadow]

(speaks in a quiet, congenial tone)

Hey there, Don. I would reply to some of your comments.



Thus, a fighter of 20th level would have 24 feats (10 for levels, 10 for fighter feats, and 4 for bonus feats.) Other classes would have 14 feats (10 for levels, and 4 for bonus feats.)
With my approach, a 20th level character would have 68 feats (11 starting, and 57 for levels.)

Of course, in 3E fighter begins with 5 free feats - the 3 armor feats, 2 weapons feats, and the shield feat, already. Add in the standard starting feat, plus the starting feat if he's human, and a fighter begins the game with 7 feats! (5 pre-chosen for him.)
I merely grant that (plus 4 more, for a total of 11) to all the other classes, and the fighter gets a bonus over and above what he already had (but then again, the fighter has a hard road to toe.)

Gestalt? That's high powered. It's the 'best of' two classes. I merely double the feats to allow the player to select feats for two classes (after all, he *does* have two classes, and should be capable in both of them.)

I approve of the increased number of feats in Pathfinder that you describe. Cheers! I just wish they'd hand out even more feats than that (such as, the 1 feat per level, in the Book of Experimental Might I.)

But who can deal with that many feats. From a player and DM point of view, its overcumbersome. Even the min/maxer would not have fun as there would be no challenge. They'd be able to do .. everything or figure out how to get the prereqs to. As one poster said, every d&d system from 2e to 3 to 4e and so one will suffer from supplement glut so long as a publically traded company needs to make money. There's no way around them. As a DM you control what books are used and not used at your table. Just because its there , doesn't mean it has to be used. I"d agree with Monte's assement that event 20 to 24 feats is too much, thus the invention of double and uberfeats to "retire" feats into more powerful affairs.

I don't know what to think of this concept. I am accustomed to feat paths (such as Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack) and it seems like all the previous feats had some use (admittedly, though, if you can drop Dodge and swap it for Whirlwind Attack, despite the fact you needed Dodge for that feat path, THAT'S going to be useful! LOL.)

REad experimental might 2 which is compatible with pathfinder. Not only can you replace feats and still meat prereqs you can swap out feats at every level (within your domain) which gives access to lots o feats without going crazy (and yes 68 feats is crazy.. that's 2 supplements worth of feats). Youre talking character sheets with a table of contents.

(solemnly)

I appreciate that many of the older concepts are considered Broken by most people today.
However, I do not consider most of the older concepts to be Broken (such as the fighter concept I described in the OP.) I consider them to be viable concepts that could be brought forward into Pathfinder or 3rd Edition.

It is *anyone's* right to believe that any concept in the older (or any) edition of the D&D game is broken. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I just happen to feel that these older concepts are worthwhile, and some would be a lot of fun if extrapolated forward.
For example, in 1E magical armor was weightless and encumberless. I'd bring that concept forward in a heartbeat. But then again, I'd bring forward the concept of Item Destruction from 1E, so that magical armor would be subject to destruction from attacks. Just my take on things.

In this sense, I am doing a 'comparison' of the older material to the new. I guess it could be called a comparison. (considers that)

By todays standards, not by mine or your own. Balance was not as important as the newness and creative actor, not saying there wasn't an attempt at balance, but the focus was on creating this new genre. So , whereas everyone has an opinion, a 1e approach to game design does not work in this millinium.

Well, ok: If a player took the quadrupled points (especially since I would keep the starting 4x bonus - only I would make it any stat, not just Intelligence, assuming it was your character's Class Prime Requisite Skill) then he could probably 'max out' on his Class Skills (especially if he had relatively few Class Skills.)
Or, he could take other skills.
A wizard, in 3E, for example, could spend 2 points per skill rank to take skills in Ride, Swim, and Climb. This might be useful, since the party fighters are not going to always be there to help the wizard. Swimming across a frigid, rapidly flowing underground river is a high DC check! (if the wizard is having to carry a wounded fighter, it's going to be a lot higher yet.)
Profession allows a character to have a hobby (5 ranks in flutist, for example) or an actual semi-profession aside from his adventuring career (10 ranks in flutist, or for a more true professional, 15 ranks.) But how about blacksmithing, for a rider who wants new horseshoes for his mount? Cobbling, for any adventurer on the road? Tailoring, same thing. Fletcher, for the archer. Just about any profession, for the rogue. A lot of ranks in music and storytelling, for the bard (as well as perform.) Something appropriate for the cleric and druid. And so on?
And there are a ton of knowledge skills. No end to knowledge skills. Local. National. Regional. Continental. World. Wildspace. Other worlds. Flora. Fauna. Monsters/magical creatures. Undead. Outsiders. The Planes. History. Ancient History. Languages. You could drop a hundred points into the knowledge skills and never find them!
Craft. But craft what? Woodworking? Metalworking? Bookbinding (something every wizard should have.) Papermaking? (Also something every wizard should have.) Leatherworking? You know, a character who is going to build something needs a lot of different skills. If he has access to a town/city and thus a whole field of artisans and craftsmen, that's great. But what if he's stuck out hundreds of miles in the Dreaded Wilderness, and needs something?
And all this, above and beyond the 45 skills in the 3E Player's Handbook alone (if you add in all the skills from other books, it's a lot more skills than that, many times that number of skills, not counting anything I've said above.)

If you consider this, you'll see that yeah, you can max out on a few 'class' skills, and you'll be really good at those few things (although at low level, you still won't be very good at them, due to the limit of 3 ranks over your level rule.)
But you won't be very good at anything else, and adventuring can require a Jack Of All Trades level of competence (and if the party rogue is dead or injured, so much for obtaining her help in doing all that for you!)

AGain, u havn't read pathfinder (wierd to comment on it without reading it) so you only put in 1 skill point per level, giving u more. Easily You would be able to max out the 15 top skills useful skills in the game (everyone would). YOu're talking on average 16 skill points a level per character.
But, as you kinda indicate, eventually these skills start trampling over one another. That or they become so one dimensional (professionals, crafts) that they would rarely be used. Add in the realness factor (how does an adventure get soo good so fast in so many things) and u realize even the current allotment of skills now may be too much. Again i like th pathfinder system. 1 rank per level in a skill. YOur class skills get a +3 (My house rule has +5 at 10th level if you have 5 or more ranks).

That works better, if you want professions, knowledge and craft skills, there should be a separate allotment of skill points for this, kin toother RPGs. It makes no sense or a player to have more than 1 or 2 professions or crafts considering the realistic time it would take to even be an apprentice to someone.

No. It is *NOT* an April Fool's Joke.
And yes, the monsters would obtain 4x the feats and skills. It is only fair. It balances out the greater power of the characters.
Greater choice means a more dangerous campaign world. But that's always been true, in any game.
The point I was making is that, greater choice *could* mean greater fun.

Why not just start your game off at level 20? Go epic all the way out. It seems that this is what you're after.

The best character? What is the best character?
Is the best fighter the guy who can make all those attacks I described in the OP? Or is the best fighter someone who is a great archer? A great horseman? A great gladiator? A cunning and skilled scout? A devout paladin armed with supernatural powers?
The point of more feats is not to make a more powerful character, but a more *complete* character, a more *fleshed out* character, and to grant more flexibility in creating such vividly described characters.
The *best* character is - in my opinion - a matter of subjective thinking. Every player is going to have a different opinion on this.

This is the focus of your arguement, letting players be the most powerful they can given the system's amount of choices. As is the charcters are complete and fleshed out. If you're looking from a fantasy point of view, most fiction characters have 4 or 5 signature moves. You're talking 68.

Boring?
In my experience, the game is only as good as the DM, and this falls under the category of the Human Equation, or People Theory as I put it in the OP.
Just my opinion, but I think that if the players try to make it a good game, and the DM tries, it will be a good game. The point of more feats and skills was simply to expedite - to use the game mechanics to aid - them in having a good game.

Depends on the definition of "good". There are some players happy the game happens every week and they can play anything with theirriends. There are some that demand a level of effort by the DM to make a balanced fun game for all. I don't know a player who wants to deal with 30, 40, 50 feats. I've never heard a player clamar for it. Feats every level, maybe, but 3 or 4 a level, thats just silly.

A power game? Some enjoy that. Many don't.
A game where everything is a pushover? I am guessing that would be a bore to the players. Monty-Haul? Again, I believe that would bore everyone.

There is no reason that more feats and skills *have* to lead to a Monty Haul game, in my opinion. Players get to choose what they want for their characters, right? They can choose the Monty Haul approach ... or choose a different route. This is up to them.
If Monty Haul games are a crashing bore, and apparently they are to most people - they are to *me* - then why would the players want to go in that direction with the extra feats and skills? What's the point? It is counterproductive.

The game you described seems impossible to play, but if it could it would more be an ubber superhero campaign.

I don't know what would work with Pathfinder. I can only guess, especially since I do not know Pathfinder hardly at all.

I do feel, however, that the lack of feats and skills (as per the core rules) in 3rd Edition D&D hurt that game. That's my opinion only. I believe that 3E would have been better served, been more entertaining, if the core rules had handed out far more feats and skills.
Thus, I advocate this for Pathfinder, since it seems to be a game in which concepts like feats and skills work in a way similar to that of 3rd Edition.

So here I am, advocating quadrupled skill points (and 4x starting, based on the Prime Attribute and not just Intelligence), and 11 feats starting (compare to the 3E fighter's 7 starting feats, pre-chosen and granted) + 3 feats per level, for all classes.
I'm not saying they're going to do that. In fact, I'm sure they aren't going to do that. I'm not even sure that it *would* be better if they did that, myself. I merely think it *might* make for a better game, if it were tried.

If the fighter at 20th level, in the Pathfinder RAW, has 24 feats (more than 1 per level), plus he can 'swap out' lesser feats for greater feats, then it seems that for the fighter in Pathfinder, at least, a situation exists where he has something approaching the kind of flexibility and choice I am advocating.
Does this work out? Has it worked out? I don't know. I've never talked with anyone who plays Pathfinder who has used the Book of Experimental Might II. So, I'd have to ask if anyone out there has ever tried these rules, and how they worked out for them?

I havn't taken it to 20th level, but at 7th it works out great, with 2 fighters in the party who enjoy teh ability to retire a feat every now and then and swap out things they felt didn't work to begin with.

I"m sorry i still think this is an april fools joke (and since the gaming world seems devoid o them today (where is my little pony d20) what the heck. If it works or you more power to you, but his is the most ludicrous suggeston i've ever heard

 

[Treebore]

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[azhrei_fje]

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 [...]

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.

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.

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'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.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

But who can deal with that many feats ...

I do not have time at the moment to make a full reply to your post. My regrets. I'll get to it later.

Allow me to say this:

The Human Equation, is an extremely complex affair. It is too complicated for me to attempt to solve. It has been so complicated, it has baffled game designers since roleplaying was invented.
This isn't to say we can't have fun. We can. But we do have to deal with the Human Equation, and ... sometimes ... it's a problem.

When people min/max with glee, exploiting the rules for the purpose of mechanical gain only, without consideration for roleplaying purposes, this is a Human Equation problem. And if this overwhelms the DM, and he can no longer provide meaningful challenges, and the game collapses and nobody has fun anymore, and the campaign falls apart, this is a Human Equation affair.
It isn't a very pleasant Human Equation affair (obviously) but it is a direct product of the behavior of those at the table, no?

*** I am not trying to directly address the Human Equation in this thread. It is quite beyond my ability to do so. ***

If you grant the players more of anything - much less the number of skill points and feats I have discussed - then yes, the Human Equation can come into the picture, they can abuse the privilege of choice, and they can totally wreck the game. Real quickly. (we don't have Knights of the Dinner Table for nothing! : ) )

My philosophical approach, my approach to Pathfinder that I would take, indeed everything I've said so far, assumes that the players will *not* do this.
My approach assumes the players will take the privilege of choice and run with it, but to make for more interesting characters and more neat and creative ideas to be expressed.
A little or moderately more character power? Yes. A group of munchkinized characters, min/maxed to the hilt, becoming super one-trick ponies? I would hope not.

So if you are going to point out that the privilege of choice *could* be abused to produce munchkinized characters, I understand. Obviously, it could. The more choice, the more capacity for abuse. That's a given. Point conceded!
I am merely saying that there is nothing I can do about it, that the potential behavior of others is beyond my ability to address, the fact they *might* abuse the privilege of choice ... there is nothing I can do about that.

I am, instead, trying to approach this from a Game Mechanics point of view.
Game Mechanics, by themselves, are neutral. Unless they are used in some capacity (whether rightly or wrongly) they are merely theoretical. Until they are put into practice, they are merely the subject of discussion, for themselves.
I have gone into the Human Equation in that I have stated that I thought my approach had the potential to stimulate creativity, that it would produce more fun. Now, I cannot prove that. I don't know that. I merely think that is how it might be. The Human Equation surpasses me. I cannot say with certainty how people are going to react to what lies before them.

I cannot, can never, ever, dispute your point that greater numbers of skill points and feats lead to the potential for greater abuse.
All I can do is say that I believe, that it is my opinion, that my approach of more feats and skill points could stimulate creativity and increase the fun.

And it is from this perspective, that I am attempting to discuss my point.
Your point, is fully conceded by Yours Truly!

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith