Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[AllisterH]

re: Specialist wizards

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it doesn't seem like specialists are actually barred from ANY schools. There's nothing preventing a specialist from simply scribing spells from a barred school one day and the following day, use their slots for normal spells and the scrolls from the barred school AND still retain the specialist bonus.

Then again, maybe that IS the intent of the rule given that all a specialist loses when they cast from a barred school is the general school bonus (but not apparently, the spell-like abilities that go with said school, if I'm reading this correctly).

I wonder why they changed this as this does give specialists a general powerup across the board.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, from what I read, Pathfinder wizards don't have prohibited schools anymore as much as that they choose two schools that they don't focus on anymore when becoming a specialist. Hence, when they cast spells from those schools, they lose the tight focus on their specialty that gains them their school power. I'll simply cite the Alpha.

"Wizards may prepare and cast spells
from their prohibited schools, but they do not gain the
specialist bonus ability of their chosen school for that day
if they do so.
Each arcane school grants a number of school powers
dependent upon the level of the wizard. In addition, each
arcane school also grants a specialist bonus power so long
as the wizard does not have any spells prepared from his
prohibited schools. See the Spells and Magic chapter for
more information."

Casting from a scroll is not the same as preparing a spell yourself, as goes for magical items too. And yeah, it is a power-up, and no, I have no idea why, and I'd prefer to see some more substantial prohibitions in place. But since I'm not so bound to 100% compatibility myself, I'll buy it anyway in the end, take what I like, replace what I don't, and call it a day. Hell, I've started rewriting the Lone Wolf OGL skill section for folded skills this week, I can deal with some houserules for Pathfinder when it comes out.

 

[kinem]

And if it was understood that all PCs in PF were equal in power to 3X characters one level higher, then that really wouldn't be LA anyway.

Sure it would. Old module says 10th level PCs? Send in 9th level PF PCs. Give XP, level advancement as per ECL 10 PCs.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I wanted to post this here.http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/pathfinder_rpg_group/
it's a pathfinder yahoo group drop by and share your thoughts.

 

[BryonD]

Sure it would.

No, it wouldn't.

Old module says 10th level PCs? Send in 9th level PF PCs.

Right. But that is a simple across the board adjustment.
LA and all the issues it brings come in when different characters have a different base power level. That doesn't apply here. At least not until you start adding Drow and such PCs and then LA comes back exactly unchanged from 3X.

Give XP, level advancement as per ECL 10 PCs.

No, if you have an across the board change then this is simply the "new" 9th level and they receive XP exactly as if they were 9th level characters completing a 9th level adventure.

 

[kinem]

LA and all the issues it brings come in when different characters have a different base power level. That doesn't apply here. At least not until you start adding Drow and such PCs and then LA comes back exactly unchanged from 3X.

It's still LA. If you wanted to mix and match core PCs and PF PCs, you could do it using LA.

No, if you have an across the board change then this is simply the "new" 9th level and they receive XP exactly as if they were 9th level characters completing a 9th level adventure.

No, the whole point of backwards compatibility is not having to worry about converting things. If the old adventure says "award 1000 xp if they do this", you award that amount, but they need as much xp as 10th level characters would to level up.

 

[BryonD]

It's still LA. If you wanted to mix and match core PCs and PF PCs, you could do it using LA.

That is a big difference. I do see any intention of mixing "core" and PF PCs. If you did you would need to deal with the adjustement. Though, honestly, the difference in power there evolves over levels and would be an even bigger pain than different base race powers.
Using a PF Wizard alongside a core Wizard would be a mistake and I've seen nothing to suggest that intent. Quite the opposite.
PF will replace the existing core. No problem.

No, the whole point of backwards compatibility is not having to worry about converting things. If the old adventure says "award 1000 xp if they do this", you award that amount, but they need as much xp as 10th level characters would to level up.

Adventures stating flat XP awards is different than the standard system.
It is perfectly compatible with the standard system and the issue of giving 1000 XP instead of 1,110 is trivial. There is nothing to worry about.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Keep it simple.

There is no need to buff up first-level characters. If survivability is an issue, make the default starting point 3rd level. No new rules needed.

That's actually not as simple as just giving 1st level characters more hit points.

Starting characters at 3rd level means more hit points, more BAB, more feats, more spells. Most often I emphatically don't want to do that. It shortens the sweet spot. I want PCs to grow into their abilities, not start them with more.

 

[Cobblestone]

That's actually not as simple as just giving 1st level characters more hit points.

Starting characters at 3rd level means more hit points, more BAB, more feats, more spells. Most often I emphatically don't want to do that. It shortens the sweet spot. I want PCs to grow into their abilities, not start them with more.

Point well taken.

It is simpler from a "doesn't require a host of new rules" standpoint. Though of course I couldn't resist the temptation to do just that in the very next paragraph! It's not simpler than "everyone gets five extra hit points."

It also has precedent in that it was the standard for Dark Sun. The justification I believe being that the world was that much more deadly than other campaign settings.

I never had a problem with 1st-level characters being kill-able in one blow either. I'm not quite sure when exactly the threat of character death became such a problem in D&D. Maybe it's a result of not being able to hit Save Game.

Peace

C-Stone

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I never had a problem with 1st-level characters being kill-able in one blow either. I'm not quite sure when exactly the threat of character death became such a problem in D&D. Maybe it's a result of not being able to hit Save Game.

Peace

C-Stone

I guess it has something to do with the fact that, from 3E on, the time to create a new character (especially at higher levels) exploded from 15 minutes tops to 1 hour at least.