Pathfinder 1E New Pathfinder Is Up

[AllisterH]

One thing I wonder about is "should I be comparing these classes to other core classes WOTC released" or are they supposed to stand on their own...

 

[Voadam]

One thing I wonder about is "should I be comparing these classes to other core classes WOTC released" or are they supposed to stand on their own...

Page 35 the sidebar

DESIGNER NOTES: RACE AND CLASS POWER
These rules increase the power of the base races and classes
to some extent. This was done for a number of reasons,
the most important of which was to balance them with
the current level of power in the game. Over the years, a
number of other races and classes have been released that
are a bit more powerful than the base options. Since we
do not want the core races to be suboptimal choices, and
we cannot change the other material, adding to the base
choices seemed like the best option. We think that you will
find these changes are not all that intrusive, and might
even allow you to play with some of the other races and
classes on an even scale.

So they are comparing these revised classes to the baseline of later released classes like the beguiler and Bo9S warrior classes.

I think bumping up the core races to match warforged was unnecessary but there it is.

 

[Voadam]

Upon finally reading the new skill section I like it a lot. I had always just house ruled that everything is a class skill, but I like this system of +3 bonus on class skills and removing the bonus slots of 1st level a lot.

 

[Nyeshet]

Upon finally reading the new skill section I like it a lot. I had always just house ruled that everything is a class skill, but I like this system of +3 bonus on class skills and removing the bonus slots of 1st level a lot.

Something I've been wondering about . . .

Skill Focus is missing from the list - perhaps because it is unchanged? Yet if it grants the +3 bonus that comes of focused study and use of a skill - and which happens to be the same as the bonus gained when placing a rank in a class skill, then wouldn't that suggest that a skill selected for Skill Focus should *become* a class skill? Granted, there is no actual mechanical difference if Skill Focus merely makes the skill chosen a class skill, thus granting the +3 bonus it would have had if it had been a class skill from the start . . . . Of course, this suggests that Skill Focus cannot be taken unless the skill already has at least one rank in it, if this is how it would work.

 

[RangerWickett]

So far I haven't seen much talk about what I think really needs fixing:

1. Save or die and the swinginess of high-level combat.

2. The tedious amount of time it takes to calculate all the various bonuses and modifiers in even mid-level combat, such as when an inspired, hasted, enlarged, sickened, shaken ranger with favored enemy dragon (and 3 points of Strength damage) decides to power attack on a whirlwind attack with his +1 shocking goblin-bane spiked chain against seven different opponents, some of whom he has high ground to, some of whom are goblins, some of whom are dragons, and some of whom have concealment.

And sadly, I don't even think the above is a particularly unlikely scenario. It could have cropped up in Red Hand of Doom, I know.

3. How necessary magic items are.

4. How bloody annoying those new MIC items are when a PC has six different things that grant a tiny bonus if he spends a swift action. "Which one do I use this turn," he thinks, slowing combat to a halt.

5. How badly designed high-level monsters are.

Changing PC classes to make them more fun is easy. I've done it a ton of times myself. Changing the monsters and magic, though? That's tough.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So far I haven't seen much talk about what I think really needs fixing:

1. Save or die and the swinginess of high-level combat.

2. The tedious amount of time it takes to calculate all the various bonuses and modifiers in even mid-level combat, such as when an inspired, hasted, enlarged, sickened, shaken ranger with favored enemy dragon (and 3 points of Strength damage) decides to power attack on a whirlwind attack with his +1 shocking goblin-bane spiked chain against seven different opponents, some of whom he has high ground to, some of whom are goblins, some of whom are dragons, and some of whom have concealment.

And sadly, I don't even think the above is a particularly unlikely scenario. It could have cropped up in Red Hand of Doom, I know.

I don't think much will happen in that regard. It requires a serious overhaul, closer to getting something like 4E, not to something like 3.75, that can stay mostly compatible with 3E.

We always have to keep in mind that Pathfinder has certain goals that restrict what you can do. One goall is to retain the 3E compatibility, and another might be not to alienate fans of 3E.

3. How necessary magic items are.

They seem to try to change a part of this with the new slot affinities. I am not convinced that this will work, since most of the "Big Six" are AC boosters, and it doesn't help all classes. It might shift a stronger focus to buff spells, though.

4. How bloody annoying those new MIC items are when a PC has six different things that grant a tiny bonus if he spends a swift action. "Which one do I use this turn," he thinks, slowing combat to a halt.

Oh, I haven't seen enough of MIC in action to see that problem. I suppose there is little one can do about it..

5. How badly designed high-level monsters are.

Changing PC classes to make them more fun is easy. I've done it a ton of times myself. Changing the monsters and magic, though? That's tough.

Arcana Evolved tries to change spells (in a good way, IMO), Iron Heroes tries to remove magic items (this might go too far for standard D&D).
Iron Heroes also gives you villain classes for improving handling of monsters. MMV seems to improve on monsters (though I really don't know how they stack up CR-wise. I my group, we joke the effective CR of a monster is its listed CR + Monster Manual Number, possibly plus 1d6.)

None of this looks like little work. Who knows, maybe designing classes that are more fun is actually the most important thing for Pathfinder? Paizo wants to sell its adventure modules, and badly designed monsters or difficult to create monsters don't pose a big problem if the adventure comes pre-statted with them, complete with tactical advice, and possibly play-tested to avoid bad problems.

 

[mrswing]

The backwards compatibility is the albatross around Pathfinder's neck. Most changes are immediately considered heretical by the 3.5 grognards , so they get backpedaled something awful in the next release. Real solutions to the basic problems of the system (as listed above) are impossible because they do indeed require a complete overhaul of the monsters (and the underlying math as well).
One question - what are MIC items??

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The backwards compatibility is the albatross around Pathfinder's neck. Most changes are immediately considered heretical by the 3.5 grognards , so they get backpedaled something awful in the next release. Real solutions to the basic problems of the system (as listed above) are impossible because they do indeed require a complete overhaul of the monsters (and the underlying math as well).

If Paizo keeps the NPCs and monsters in their adventure modules mostly 3.5, this means 3.5 grognards only have to ignore the Pathfinder rules and continue using the adventures. (And hope they can cope with a possibly difficulty increase in the modules. Age of Worms was a killer-campaign for our group, using 3.5. I see the potential for Pathfinder reducing the problems a little bit...)

One question - what are MIC items??

Magic Item Compendium from WotC.

 

[Erik Mona]

4. How bloody annoying those new MIC items are when a PC has six different things that grant a tiny bonus if he spends a swift action. "Which one do I use this turn," he thinks, slowing combat to a halt.

Isn't this best solved by the individual GM banning those stupid items from his game? We can fix a lot of stuff, but non-open garbage published by other companies isn't really high on the list right now.

I don't mean to sound rude, but everything from that book gets a VERY close eye before I let it into my campaign. My table is not the RPGA, and I don't have to allow every dumb thing to come down the pike into my campaigns.

And neither do you.

--Erik

 

[Odysseus]

So far I haven't seen much talk about what I think really needs fixing:

1. Save or die and the swinginess of high-level combat.

2. The tedious amount of time it takes to calculate all the various bonuses and modifiers in even mid-level combat, such as when an inspired, hasted, enlarged, sickened, shaken ranger with favored enemy dragon (and 3 points of Strength damage) decides to power attack on a whirlwind attack with his +1 shocking goblin-bane spiked chain against seven different opponents, some of whom he has high ground to, some of whom are goblins, some of whom are dragons, and some of whom have concealment.

And sadly, I don't even think the above is a particularly unlikely scenario. It could have cropped up in Red Hand of Doom, I know.

3. How necessary magic items are.

4. How bloody annoying those new MIC items are when a PC has six different things that grant a tiny bonus if he spends a swift action. "Which one do I use this turn," he thinks, slowing combat to a halt.

5. How badly designed high-level monsters are.

Changing PC classes to make them more fun is easy. I've done it a ton of times myself. Changing the monsters and magic, though? That's tough.

From what i've playtested from Pathfinder A1 , they are making some progress on points 2 and 3. And hopefully they can also make customising monsters an easy thing to do