Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Banshee16]

2) The remaining creatures should either simply be magic immune (a rare minority in my opinion), or should be noticibly harder to effect with magic. To accomplish this, give a small bonus to saves vs. magical effects (+2 to +4), and maybe grant them a kind of "magic evasion" -- full effect on a failed save, no effect on a successful save. [I personally don't even think this last bit is necessary, but it at least mimics the standard SR rules a bit more closely.]

You know, someone else posted about getting rid of SR, and I was thinking of the exact same thing as you just suggested. It could be a monster feat or quality or something......

So SR could be as simple as the creature having a racial bonus to saves vs. spells, and then this feat, so that if they make their save, they evade the spell.

The only downside to that is it removes any kind of influence by the spellcaster's power, which was a fix in 3E to the idea in 1st and 2nd Ed. that magic resistance was all or nothing.

Banshee

 

[EricNoah]

I do know what you are saying -- all other things being equal, a fireball's gonna have a certan Reflex save DC and it doesn't really change based on the caster's level (though the damage does increase). I guess my only response there is, "cast higher level spells with higher save DCs, or cast them heightened" or whatever.

But having two rolls just dramatically increases the chance that the spell will be ineffective, and I think if that is the desired result of SR (and I would debate that!) you can accomplish the same with one roll and some save bonuses for the critter.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

I think elves should have a charisma bonus and have sorcerer as their favored class. And I hope Paizo's sorcerer ends up looking a great deal like Monte Cook's CBoEM sorcerer.

 

[Banshee16]

I do know what you are saying -- all other things being equal, a fireball's gonna have a certan Reflex save DC and it doesn't really change based on the caster's level (though the damage does increase). I guess my only response there is, "cast higher level spells with higher save DCs, or cast them heightened" or whatever.

But having two rolls just dramatically increases the chance that the spell will be ineffective, and I think if that is the desired result of SR (and I would debate that!) you can accomplish the same with one roll and some save bonuses for the critter.

Perhaps a certain component of your level grants a "Power Adjustment" to the save DCs of all spells you cast.

Get rid of the Heighten Spell feat, and say that you get a +1 to the save DCs of all spells for every 5 spellcaster levels? I don't know....obviously, it has to be balanced so people can *make* the saves. I did find in 3.5, however, that saves were passed on a pretty frequent basis. With all the bonuses from magic items etc. characters seemed to pass more often than I liked.....similarly, PC spellcasters didn't find their spells too effective against opponents because of the frequency of success at save rolls.

I have to say, I'm very interested in seeing how this experiment goes. If nothing else, it might end with Wizards purchasing Paizo in order to stave off splitting the fan base. I know I've had my concerns with 4E, and I've got a tonne of 3E ideas I'd still like a chance to use, and this could give me the opportunity.

I did purchase a lot of Paizo's Dungeon and Dragon magazines, but haven't purchased the Pathfinder books yet. They *are* good.....I've looked them over....I just have enough modules at the moment to last me a little while....and with the advent of 4E, it didn't make a lot of sense to be buying new ones. The Pathfinder RPG could give new life to my game though. Some of my players are pretty excited by the news.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I think elves should have a charisma bonus and have sorcerer as their favored class. And I hope Paizo's sorcerer ends up looking a great deal like Monte Cook's CBoEM sorcerer.

Not a bad idea......the Wizard could take a lot of clues from Monte Cook's Magister, from Arcana Unearthed. I've always liked that spellcaster variant, but never had a chance to use it. It's very similar to an option presented in Players Option: Spells and Magic in 2nd Ed.

I'd agree with elves having a charisma bonus...but people tend to think of that because they're described as attractive...yet in 3E, charisma and attractiveness aren't necessarily the same.

Banshee

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Not a bad idea......the Wizard could take a lot of clues from Monte Cook's Magister, from Arcana Unearthed. I've always liked that spellcaster variant, but never had a chance to use it. It's very similar to an option presented in Players Option: Spells and Magic in 2nd Ed.

I'd agree with elves having a charisma bonus...but people tend to think of that because they're described as attractive...yet in 3E, charisma and attractiveness aren't necessarily the same.

Banshee

I think you could make a case for elves having the bonus for their force of personality as well as their attractiveness.

It would also be nice if elves were called sidhe but I am not holding my breath for that one, especially since it is a cosmetic change I can introduce on my own.

 

[kinem]

Get rid of the Heighten Spell feat, and say that you get a +1 to the save DCs of all spells for every 5 spellcaster levels? I don't know....obviously, it has to be balanced so people can *make* the saves. I did find in 3.5, however, that saves were passed on a pretty frequent basis. With all the bonuses from magic items etc. characters seemed to pass more often than I liked.....similarly, PC spellcasters didn't find their spells too effective against opponents because of the frequency of success at save rolls.

Saves are already too hard to balance - at high levels it's common for a target to almost always fail or almost always succeed.

SR provided a way to tame that a bit - sure the monster needs to roll a natural 20 to make the save against the wizard, and to roll a 12+ against the cleric, but he still can avoid the spells about half of the time thanks to SR. It also helps boss monsters who need a very high chance to not fall to the first save-or-die spell. Although with all the splat material now, it is no longer very reliable.

Also, high level spellcasters are already considered overpowered compared to non-spellcasters, and removing SR would only increase that disparity.

 

[Klaus]

I think the current pathfinder threads are largely about the business decision and looking to the future (plus 3e/4e discussions) So I was hoping to have someplace to purely discuss the rules on enworld. Thus the thread....

My thoughts:
Certainly an alpha version. Some really nice ideas, and some that look fairly broken/bad idea-ish.

• The skills look to be a bit messed up. If I'm following the rules correctly, a 10th level human rogue with a 14 int will have 16 skills "maxed out". That seems like a big change. The Human fighter with a 10 int will have 8 maxed skills. Not sure this is wise.
• The fixes to the fighter, while certainly needed, don't add much other than attack, damage, AC, and (at the very end) a huge amount of DR. It's also a "single path" (all fighters get the same bonuses) and the "options" (changing armor or weapon choices) are very non-optimal.
• The wizard "item rather than familiar" option looks over powered, and I think the specialist rules need a bit of work still. Also the sorc. will need some love (at least same familiar options).

The new "grapple/trip/etc." rules look like they are a real improvement, but I haven't looked too closely at them. The breakage rules look fairly good, and the simple rules for fixing broken magic items are certainly welcome.

All told, this looks to be a good start to a 3.75.

Thoughts?

Mark

(This probably belongs in rules I guess. In fact there is probably a thread there already... Ah well).

I think all classes would benefit from a structure like the Rogue's "Rogue Talents".

And how awesome is Rogues getting access to a few spells at higher levels?

Gray Mouser FTW!

 

[Alzrius]

I made a thread over on Paizo's site about not changing any rules at all.

I won't repeat the entire post here, but the gist of it is this: there's a lot of changes that could be made to 3.5, but ultimately, Pathfinder is meant to stay the course for the 3.5 crowd, so it shouldn't alter any rules. 3.5 isn't perfect, but it's what we know, what we enjoy, and what we want to stay with. Those who want to house rule various things already have; and while I'm sure they think that the entire system would benefit from those changes, other groups quite likely don't have any problem with a particular rule, so there's no need to act like a change is crying out to be made.

3.5 is the game we want to keep playing, and see continued support for, so we don't need a 3.75 for Pathfinder.

 

[MadMaxim]

I have only looked over the material briefly, but so far I like what I'm seeing. Clerics get more specialties from their domains rather than just an expanded list of spells (makes them more different from wizards). Their turn undead does damage to undead (easier to use than the current rules, though I know variants have been introduced). They're proficient with their deity's favored weapon (finally!). That all looks good in my book.

The fighter gets an overall boost to his damage potential and makes light-armored fighters viable through increased armor bonus if they decide to go with light armor. They get more feats and some nice abilities to top their levels off with. I have to say to the people that are against more modifiers: I think that's how the game works. D&D has (as far as I know) always been rather heavy on the math, so for those wanting something a whole lot lighter, I believe True20 or similar games are the way to go. I don't say it's wrong to want D&D to be simpler and more streamlined, but I just don't think that's easily doable without losing some of the nuances.

The rogue gets a nice overall boost as well with more sneak-attackable creatures and rogue talents. Increased hit die doesn't hurt either.

Wizards... They're awesome! I like it a whole lot what they're doing to them especially that they have to have their arcane bonded items with them in order to cast spells without trouble

As for the rest of the mechanics I'll get back to it. I don't know what to make of the skill system just yet, and the combat chapter is still waiting to be read, but I believe the good people at Paizo are on to something here. Excellent job so far, guys!