Pathfinder Beta

[MortonStromgal]

I have to say I like the way this is headed. More hit points at 1st level (I think double the hit die is the option I would go with, as it would cut down on the multi-class rogue/fighter always taking rogue at 1st level), 0 level spells have no limit per day (minor healing removed), and something new at every level are all good things in my humble opinion. The other changes I'm indifferent or undecided on. What are y'alls opinions on it?

[Jcosby]

Well, I'm currently running the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path by Paizo and we are using the Pathfinder Beta (3.75) rules and we are enjoying it.

By reading a lot of posts on the 3.5 Vs. 4.0 debates I think that most people that like 3.5 will like 3.75 and for the same reasons most people that prefer 4.0 will not like 3.75. But, with that said there are many things that mirror some of the changes in 4.0 in the Pathfinder beta.

For one the first level hp options are very similar to 4.0 but you can choose to stick with standard 3.5 rules as well. We as a group voted and opted for the racial option. Max Hps + Preferred Class + Con + Racial Bonus. Frailer races (Gnomes, Halflings, Elves get +4 hps, Standard Races like Human, Half-Elf receive +6 hps and more hardy races get +8 hps at first level.) We find this to be a good mix and adds more options to character creation.

Another thing that mirrors the "spirit" of 4th edition is the Rage and Ki pools among other changes to character classes. Rage and Ki are now awarded as points to be spent on abilities as apposed to just abilities you can use x times per day. This also gives players more options and more things to do per day.

0 Level spells being cast at will and the first level of domain spells being cast at will also give casters something to do all of the time without over balancing them.

There are many subtle changes in the rules that make the game more streamlined and at the same time adding more options for the player from character creation to game play through out all 20 levels.

The changes to combat maneuvers are done well and make doing things like Bull Rush, Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Sundering quicker and more "game friendly" although I think they favor the "STR" character a bit to much when in some situations a character with a high "Dex" could be just as successful. (Ask a Judo expert if he needs to be super strong to trip someone...) But in the end I think the changes were done to speed up the game and remove something almost everyone disliked in the 3.5 rules and that's the "Grappling" rules.

Over all I think Paizo hit a home run with the Beta Rules. They still have a year to iron out any of the small wrinkles with their rules and add on to what is already a super product.

Here's to hoping that Paizo can keep 3.x alive for a long time.
Jeff

[amardolem]

I am also in a beta game of RotRL. We have used the CMB/ new grapple rules with great success (and speed), also having school powers for wizards and unlimited cantrips allows your character to remain useful after you blow off your big stuff at low levels.....I actually (as a joke) went on on a detect magic spree-----> "I'm casting Detect Magic" rnd 2 "I'm casting Detect Magic" rnd 3 "I'm casting Detect Magic" rnd 4 "I'm casting Detect Magic" ....but more to the point one of their goals was to end the 15 minute adventuring day at low levels, and anyone that has played a Wizard at those levels can attest to how the game becomes if the party decides to forge on, and you have nothing left.

:frusty:

[Skunkape]

One of the three GMs in our group is really into Pathfinder and is going to introduce it in parts for his current campaign and when we start his new one, sometime after the first of the year, we'll be playing the entire rule set. So far, I like what I see, but I haven't read through the whole set of rules yet.

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

I like what ive read so far and fully intend to purchase the 500+ page Alpha rules when released.

Thoth-Amon

[amardolem]

The pdf is free for the Beta.....if you read some I'm assuming you know that, if not... it's here: http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG

I hate reading pdf's so I ordered the print version as well, and while it is abit below Paizo's normal glossy fit and finish, it's still color and a decent value (course I'm sure it'll be up to standards when the hardcover comes out)

I can add that it doesn't change the feel of the game your used to at all, it's seems well within the compatablity with 3.5 goal they have set for it

[gdmcbride]

I picked up the Pathfinder beta print edition at Gencon and I have to agree its a home run. If you love 3.x of D&D and merely wanted D&D 4th edition to be a refinement/clean up of the system, this is exactly what you asked for.

It simply drips good ideas. A few stand outs:

a) all the classes have good reason to go all the way to 20th level.
b) save or die spells have all been revamped so the do damage instead of just killing you.
c) CMB (combat maneuver bonus) both encouraged fun chandelier swinging, tripping, disarming sort of actions but all the while making it much faster to 'do the math'.
d) stat increasing items only go in two slots opening up PCs to more versatile and thus more interesting magic items.

And thanks to a year long open playtest this system is going to get the hell beaten out of it by thousands of rabid fans. Pathfinder 1.0 is a direct outgrowth of D&D 3.0 (which had an incredibly extensive playtest and then years of actual play) which lead to D&D 3.5 (again extensive playtesting and years of use) and now Paizo's own efforts are only adding to this.

You still may not like the system (it is good ol' fashioned crunchy D&D 3.x at its core after all) but you can't say they didn't test it. This could be the most playtested system of all time.

Gary

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

The pdf is free for the Beta.....if you read some I'm assuming you know that, if not... it's here: http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG

I hate reading pdf's so I ordered the print version as well, and while it is abit below Paizo's normal glossy fit and finish, it's still color and a decent value (course I'm sure it'll be up to standards when the hardcover comes out)

I can add that it doesn't change the feel of the game your used to at all, it's seems well within the compatablity with 3.5 goal they have set for it
Already downloaded it, amardolem. Thanks for link for i am sure many will be using it. I wont buy the beta release but the alpha is surely on my list. I can read pdf's but am an old-schooler and prefer books(easier to greedily possess like a magician and his long lost tome) over computer books, as i am sure many of us here are. A special thanks goes to Paizo.com, for 3.75.

Thoth-Amon

[MortonStromgal]

I'm confused is Paizo not using the term beta testing correctly? In software and alpha test is usually an internal test before getting outside testers, once that passes then you move into the beta test stages and let people outside the developers test it. Finally after the beta test you have release.

I agree with all of you print is better overall. I've been printing sections that I really want to go over.

[gdmcbride]

They are using it correctly. They did the alpha on their web site early this year. That lead to the beta which is out now both digitally and in print. Next year is Pathfinder 1.0.

Gary

[Engar]

I was a little overwhelmed by the racial powers. I may have misunderstood them. I want to take another look. 4e is not my cup of tea.

[DMMike]

I looked over the alpha (the first playtest, right?). I'm not happy with it. I was hoping for a few changes here or there to streamline things, like some skill updating (which they did), and ease-of-play improvements (which they did with combat). Throw in some new flavor and possibly brand-new classes (like the excellent Dragon book from a while back), and you have a reason to continue 3E.

Instead, it looks like they tried to rework everything. If it ain't broken, sabotage it! (Do the goblins have that saying wrong?) The beefier hit points are very much a "hold my hand while I gain experience" thing, and the core classes didn't need any changing at all. (Maybe the cleric was a tad over powered). But pumping everyone up doesn't raise the bar, it just raises the average. I'll stick to the 3.5 books and use Pathfinder for a house rule here or there.

[MortonStromgal]

I really like the beta version of the skills, they lowered the number (not as few as 4e) and consolidated. Like open locks is now a part of what you can do with disable device. I didn't read the alpha so I have no idea on that. The beta game seams very much an improvement on 3.5 to me however it still retains many of the annoyances D&D has always had. Personally I think the extra hit points at first level makes more sense. I never liked the 5th level character is 5x or more better than the 1st level. I really enjoyed AD&D 2nd where the hit dice were dropped after 9th level though, I just wish they gave you more at the start.

Most Improved
Race: Half-Elf
Class: Fighter or Sorcerer

[gdmcbride]

Right now, double hit points is an optional rule. The standard method remains max hit points + con bonus at 1st, dice + con bonus every level thereafter.

They have a sidebar on page 14 suggesting alternative methods for playtesting.

I would disagree with the sentiment that they are merely changing things for the sake of change. What they have done is change all of the core classes so that you get something useful in nearly every level for every one of the core classes. And all of the core classes get a big bennie for making it to 20th level.

In this way, they are taking one of the good ideas from 4th edition and applying to 3.x while still leaving 3.x recognizable as the old game.

These are welcome changes for me. A single classed character is almost always simpler and easier to play. Now you can have that simplicity without sacrificing mechanical advantage. I like that.

Are there things I don't like? Sure.

Class skills still irk me. Why can't my fighter be stealthy or a diplomat? What if my fighter's concept is that he was raised the son of ambassador who travelled the world and taught him to raise the sword only as a last resort? "But when you do draw at last that sword, son, you win!" But they are even easier in Pathfinder to house rule away.

Huge piles of stepped attack bonus attacks remain in the game thus ensuring that high level play is PAINFULLY slow as fighters, rangers, paladins and barbarians wind their way through attack after attack that after the first couple are almost certainly going to miss.

The acrobatic feat gives you a +2 bonus to your acrobatic skill (no problem there) and your ... FLY skill? That's bizarre.

But these are minor complaints. Overall, there is much here to like.

Gary

[DMMike]

...like the artwork.

(A fighter can't get as many Move Silently ranks as a Rogue because it's not a fundamental part of his training. Think of it like a lawyer who's excellent at identifying igneous rock formations unique to Micronesia. It's possible, but not part of the training.)

[gdmcbride]

...like the artwork.

(A fighter can't get as many Move Silently ranks as a Rogue because it's not a fundamental part of his training. Think of it like a lawyer who's excellent at identifying igneous rock formations unique to Micronesia. It's possible, but not part of the training.)

That depends on concept. In the country of Imaginandaria, all fighters must pass through the haunted Zone of Terror unseen, or their souls will be ripped screaming from their still living bodies by the hated Wraithlords. Therefore children are trained almost from the time they can walk to be stealthy!

My point here is that class skills should be based on concept and world, not some artificial notion of 'training'.

Gary

[praksis]

Well as written currently there's nothing stopping a fighter from taking the stealth skill...they just won't be quite as good at it as a rogue. Instead of ranks counting only as 50% (pretty much ensuring no one takes cross class skills) now you only lose out on a single +3 bonus. Hurts a little at level 1, but later on that starts becoming less and less of an issue.

...or just house rule it that players can exchange a class skill or 2 based on concept.

[Webhead]

I know it's only tangentially related but all this discussion about Pathfinder has implanted it in my brain again:

Is anyone aware of any documented efforts to convert the Star Wars Saga Edition system to D&D? I personally feel that it would do a great service toward making an appealing version of D&D but it would definately require far more work than I'm willing to give it myself.

[gdmcbride]

Well as written currently there's nothing stopping a fighter from taking the stealth skill...they just won't be quite as good at it as a rogue. Instead of ranks counting only as 50% (pretty much ensuring no one takes cross class skills) now you only lose out on a single +3 bonus. Hurts a little at level 1, but later on that starts becoming less and less of an issue.

...or just house rule it that players can exchange a class skill or 2 based on concept.

It's the "your character doesn't meet the designer's preconceived notions of what a fighter should be skilled at -- you must be mechanically punished!" attitude that I am most against. Pathfinder is better than RAW D&D 3.x. A stealthy or geographically knowledgeable fighter sucks less. I would prefer to get rid of the penalty altogether.

And for the record, option number three is my choice -- house rule class skills into the oblivion they deserve. I've played that way for years in various campaigns. Nothing but good things came from more character options.

Gary

[praksis]

I know it's only tangentially related but all this discussion about Pathfinder has implanted it in my brain again:

Is anyone aware of any documented efforts to convert the Star Wars Saga Edition system to D&D? I personally feel that it would do a great service toward making an appealing version of D&D but it would definately require far more work than I'm willing to give it myself.

Not that I know of...but now after reading saga for the first time I really hope so. Disclaimer is I haven't been able to play either saga or 4th, but saga looks so much better. Instead of reams of combat abilities have talent trees that lend themselves much more cleanly to combat & non-combat quirks to the character. Plus gives more variety between characters of the same class but of different concepts.
spells would be an interesting challenge. Like how they did the force, not sure how well that would adapt to casters.

Agree it would be a lot more work than I'd be willing to put in right now.

[praksis]

It's the "your character doesn't meet the designer's preconceived notions of what a fighter should be skilled at -- you must be mechanically punished!" attitude that I am most against. Pathfinder is better than RAW D&D 3.x. A stealthy or geographically knowledgeable fighter sucks less. I would prefer to get rid of the penalty altogether.

And for the record, option number three is my choice -- house rule class skills into the oblivion they deserve. I've played that way for years in various campaigns. Nothing but good things came from more character options.

Gary

To play devils advocate though, should a fighter be just a stealthy as a rogue? Ignoring armor penalties, should they be able to be just as good at that skill? and if so does that mean the rogue is then just a fighter that has a different slant in their approach to combat?

Pathfinder is the best I've seen from D&D yet on being open to characters learning non-traditional skills, but it does still limit your initial choices. This is good for beginners, gives the traditional prod towards a few to start with. Another option would be to give each class a number of skills the player can assign as class skills. Harder for beginners, and opens up possibility of min/maxing a little, but overall more options for the advanced players to build out an interesting concept.

Or just leave them open to choice from the start and give a list of suggestions for beginners...actually I kind of like that idea better. Keep the balance maintained with the number of class skills, but gives free reign to adjust as you like to fit your world.

[gdmcbride]

To play devils advocate though, should a fighter be just a stealthy as a rogue? Ignoring armor penalties, should they be able to be just as good at that skill? and if so does that mean the rogue is then just a fighter that has a different slant in their approach to combat?


Depends on the fighter and depends on the rogue. Concept is king. A rogue who puts all of his points into dex, takes stealth and foresakes noisy armor is going to be extremely stealthy. Should a fighter who does the same be any different? I agree that is not a traditional plate-sword-and-board D&D fighter. But why should the build not be valid?

Yes, D&D thrives on niche enforcement. I see niche enforcement, properly, as the domain of class features. Rogues get sneak attack and trapfinding. They will always be better at exploiting their stealth and finding traps. That enforces their niche sufficiently. Fighters get more hit points, better BAB, and combat feats galore. They will always be better once you leave the cover of darkness.

But I can imagine a special forces-esque fighter who always tries to use stealth to get the best tactical advantage, before leaping into the fray. Not only can I imagine it, I have seen it played very successfully.

As far as starting characters go, I really like the notion of including for every class a few standard builds so that starting characters are not overwhelmed with choices. But once you get past that introductory stage, I want a system that opens up options.

You can even keep the class skills entry and call it 'recommended skills'. I just want to remove the mechanical penalty for moving further afield.

Gary

[Webhead]

Depends on the fighter and depends on the rogue. Concept is king. A rogue who puts all of his points into dex, takes stealth and foresakes noisy armor is going to be extremely stealthy. Should a fighter who does the same be any different? I agree that is not a traditional plate-sword-and-board D&D fighter. But why should the build not be valid?...

That's why there should be one central class: Adventurer.

At every level, the character gains a talent from any one of the available Talent Trees as long as they meet the prerequisites. The Talent Trees are: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Wizard...:D

Yes, I'm being a goober...but it would certainly open the flood-gates of ultimate character customization. ;)

[gdmcbride]

That's why there should be one central class: Adventurer.

At every level, the character gains a talent from any one of the available Talent Trees as long as they meet the prerequisites. The Talent Trees are: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Wizard...:D

Yes, I'm being a goober...but it would certainly open the flood-gates of ultimate character customization. ;)

You my friend need to go play some BRP! (http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=246)

Gary

[Webhead]

You my friend need to go play some BRP! (http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=246)

Gary

Yeah, I know. M&M is a good way to go for that too. Or Unisystem. Or FATE... ;)

[praksis]

As far as starting characters go, I really like the notion of including for every class a few standard builds so that starting characters are not overwhelmed with choices. But once you get past that introductory stage, I want a system that opens up options.

You can even keep the class skills entry and call it 'recommended skills'. I just want to remove the mechanical penalty for moving further afield.

Gary

Bugger, now you got me thinking about what would be wrong about tossing the +3 bonus (or adding it to any trained skill)

What could you do with it?
- Min/max skill selection...is this really a problem? With most abilities class specific I'm having trouble thinking of where this would cause issue.
- Jack of all trades - 1 point in everything so you can make a skill check in any situation...you just might suck at it. Interesting, but again I don't see a game breaking situation here.

Why is are class skills there in the first place?
- Leftover from Class listed proficiencies in 2nd, class skills in 3rd, which orient a class towards a specific role in the party. Good for the traditional fantasy setting & new players.
- Used to help differentiate Rogues...they had sneak attack, skills and not much else. PF has corrected that part, so why keep the limits on skills?

With the inclusion of recommended skill selections, I can't come up with a valid argument against you. It's there because that's how it's always been...but there's no good reason I can see for that to still be the case.

[agoraderek]

Bugger, now you got me thinking about what would be wrong about tossing the +3 bonus (or adding it to any trained skill)

What could you do with it?
- Min/max skill selection...is this really a problem? With most abilities class specific I'm having trouble thinking of where this would cause issue.
- Jack of all trades - 1 point in everything so you can make a skill check in any situation...you just might suck at it. Interesting, but again I don't see a game breaking situation here.

Why is are class skills there in the first place?
- Leftover from Class listed proficiencies in 2nd, class skills in 3rd, which orient a class towards a specific role in the party. Good for the traditional fantasy setting & new players.
- Used to help differentiate Rogues...they had sneak attack, skills and not much else. PF has corrected that part, so why keep the limits on skills?

With the inclusion of recommended skill selections, I can't come up with a valid argument against you. It's there because that's how it's always been...but there's no good reason I can see for that to still be the case.

one of the stated design goals for pathfinder is backward compatability. they want PfRPG to be as compatable with 3.5 as possible, while smoothing over some of the rough spots.

that would be the "good reason".

[gdmcbride]

one of the stated design goals for pathfinder is backward compatability. they want PfRPG to be as compatable with 3.5 as possible, while smoothing over some of the rough spots.

that would be the "good reason".

It's hard to argue too passionately about skill system backwards compatibility in Pathfinder. By combining several skills (acrobatics, stealth, perception, etc...), skill lists will be different. That change is far more radical than removing class skills. Buying cross-class skills is a relatively rare option. Most monsters and NPCs stick to class skills.

But really, what does skills being different really matter? So a monster or npc could theoretically have a few more skill points than it currently does. Ok, great ... spend them if you want. But if you don't, will your PCs ever care or likely even notice? Besides, many of the monsters don't really match up to the skill system thanks to 'racial bonuses' which is just code for this monster only has 2 hit dice but we want it to be really stealthy anyway.

Gary

[amardolem]

Depends on the fighter and depends on the rogue. Concept is king. A rogue who puts all of his points into dex, takes stealth and foresakes noisy armor is going to be extremely stealthy. Should a fighter who does the same be any different? I agree that is not a traditional plate-sword-and-board D&D fighter. But why should the build not be valid?

Yes, D&D thrives on niche enforcement. I see niche enforcement, properly, as the domain of class features. Rogues get sneak attack and trapfinding. They will always be better at exploiting their stealth and finding traps. That enforces their niche sufficiently. Fighters get more hit points, better BAB, and combat feats galore. They will always be better once you leave the cover of darkness.

But I can imagine a special forces-esque fighter who always tries to use stealth to get the best tactical advantage, before leaping into the fray. Not only can I imagine it, I have seen it played very successfully.

If the concept requires a "stealth fighter" why not just make a combat rogue if you want high stealth....they get the most skills anyway, and by taking combat feats could easily, be put in the realm of decent melee skill, maybe not so tank-like and powerful as a fighter via HP and BAB but sevicable to the concept (with the additional PRPG rules, is even more servicable)

[Grimwell]

Re: stealth fighter

I haven't been paying attention to any official Pathfinder communications, so forgive me if this is a silly question; but did they set out to radically change core class functions?

Wanting a stealthy fighter is a fine thing, expecting it out of a D&D based system is another entirely. D&D is a class based system and protects the classes. Anything that is a variant of any edition of D&D (Pathfinder) is going to inherit much of that unless the designers of the variant system work very deliberately to break it away from that class protection.

[DMMike]

Cross-class skills are indeed a relic - but they play an important part in scaling issues.

So a stalking cat sneaks at a DC of, let's say, 20. Does a fighter need to be any sneakier than this? At 5th level, a fighter with Skill Focus, Stealthy, Dex 18, and cross-class ranks hits a DC of 20 70% of the time. That's pretty good for a guy (gal) who should be more worried about putting his sword through the guards, instead of sneaking around them.

But since it's a class skill for the rogue (and other classes), Move Silently can take on epic proportions. Say, oh, moving as quietly as a gnat across a bed of feathers (DC 35). Which, by the way, a cross-classing fighter can hit 5% of the time at level 7.

Adventurer is a good class idea. I'd describe it as an Expert (DMG) with bonus feats as a fighter - but not limited to fighter feats. And you can use either starting feat to buy a higher Hit Die, or one more Good Save. Maybe cash in two feats to buy another class feature. Wanna try it?

[gdmcbride]

Re: stealth fighter

I haven't been paying attention to any official Pathfinder communications, so forgive me if this is a silly question; but did they set out to radically change core class functions?

Wanting a stealthy fighter is a fine thing, expecting it out of a D&D based system is another entirely. D&D is a class based system and protects the classes. Anything that is a variant of any edition of D&D (Pathfinder) is going to inherit much of that unless the designers of the variant system work very deliberately to break it away from that class protection.

Pathfinder has done a pretty good job of making its system backward compatible. It's always a tight rope of course and some people will feel they changed it too much and others will feel they changed it not enough. It is impossible to please everyone. They are simply shooting for a fairly wide mainstream band. I am almost certain that class skills (in some form) will be in Pathfinder 1.0.

Naturally, I disagree with the argument against stealth fighters. Or monks who are well travelled and thus know geography. Or paladins who have a ghost of an ancient and powerful mage stuck in their heads and thus know knowledge (arcana). Or ...

Niche protection (assuming we accept the argument that this is a good thing) is more than adequately defended by class features. Fighters get bonus combat feats. Rogues get sneak attack and trapfinding. Wizards get spells and familiars. Clerics get prayers and undead turning. There is no confusing who is supposed to do what. Do we really need to heap more niche enforcement onto a game that is already drowning in it?

I suppose it is simply a matter of taste. I like a versatile system where the rules get out of the way and let concept rain supreme. I love a quirky character that defies convention and really challenges your assumptions about how a fighter, rogue, or whatever can operate. I suppose that's why I'm not actually PLAYING (in any of my three current campaigns) any D&D 3.x at this moment.

Its also probably why of the last nine campaigns I've played in or ran in the last five years, only one of them has been 3.x but four of them have been BRP (the rest by the way were D&D 4th, Spirit of the Century, Warhammer, and 7th Sea). I try a lot of systems, but I keep coming back to Basic Roleplaying. Ah, genius -- pure and simple.

Gary

[gdmcbride]

So a stalking cat sneaks at a DC of, let's say, 20. Does a fighter need to be any sneakier than this?

This is not for you or me to answer. It is for each individual character who chooses his own path to decide how sneaky his character will be.

What you are saying is that if a characters wants to be stealthier than a cat, he must accept that he can't play every class. He must realize his concept choices are limited to only four of the base clases (bard, monk, ranger and rogue).

I don't think our hypothetical player should be. It's really as simple that.

Gary

[nijineko]

or you could just play a chameleon. ^^

[tesral]

It's the "your character doesn't meet the designer's preconceived notions of what a fighter should be skilled at -- you must be mechanically punished!" attitude that I am most against. Pathfinder is better than RAW D&D 3.x. A stealthy or geographically knowledgeable fighter sucks less. I would prefer to get rid of the penalty altogether.

And for the record, option number three is my choice -- house rule class skills into the oblivion they deserve. I've played that way for years in various campaigns. Nothing but good things came from more character options.

Gary

I did, house ruled them to oblivion. They always impressed me as an artificial construct that really had no stimulationist reason. It is one of those aspects of D&D that rub me the wrong way. Why should the class you are limit what you can learn? Fighters automatically get all fighter related skills, armor maintenance etc. why should they be limited to fighterly skills outside of that? The same with any other class. The restriction makes no sense.

My modified Skills (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/fantasy/fantpdf/05_Manual_Skills.pdf) chapter addresses that and several other things.

[Jcosby]

I guess I'm a hold out from the old system. I don't agree that everyone should be able to be a good as everyone else at anyone skill. Also I don't believe that every class should have access to every skill. It's what makes and defines D&D to me. There are classes for a reason. There are barriers put up for a reason. If not then we should just go to a skill based system and allow you to gain skill ranks in anything you want. That's not D&D. It is how you can choose to play D&D if you like, but it's not out of the box D&D, which I happen to like. Do I house rule some things, sure, but not too many.

To use an already used example; the Rogue and the Fighter using the "Stealth" skill. In no way should the fighter be able to "out stealth" the rogue. For the exact same reason the Rogue shouldn't and can't (by the numbers) out fight the Fighter. He can't wield all the weapons a fighter can and he can't wear all the armor a fighter can without negatives. So why should the fighter be able to be able to perform Rogue abilities as well as the Rogue? Can a fighter take skill ranks in Stealth and be a more stealthy fighter? Sure, and with Pathfinder Beta he can do it only 15% worse then a Rogue who is doing something that would be considered class defining.

There is no reason to house rule skill changes now with the removal of the cross-class penalty. At 20th level your only 3 ranks lower then someone who took it at 1st level as a class skill. So, at first level there is a perceived gap, but even then it's only 15% in a D20 system which doesn't really make that much of a difference when you consider the DC's of most things at 1st level. By the time you have leveled up that 3 rank differences is less and less.

I think the system if anything is to over-powered for cross class skill selection.

JC

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

Well said, and i whole-heartedly agree, Jcosby.

Thoth-Amon

[tesral]

One of the things I did in revamping the system was to return the rogue's unique abilities to the rogue as class features. Rogues are not a pile of skill points.

I pointed out of a friend that the best class to build a sage off was a Rogue. They have the most skill points and there is no requirement that these be spent on Roguely skills.

So the Rogue gets their class skills back as class features. Bards are treated the same way as is my Healer class. They have a pool of class points to spend on bonuses in their class features.

"Skills" are things that are not class features.

[Jcosby]

"Skills" are things that are not class features.


Agree 100%. Skills should be secondary skills (2nd ed.) Not class defining abilities. You know I might just house rule that in.. Remove the "Rogue" skills and place them back into the base Rogue Class.

I really did like what they did in 2nd Ed Rogue the best. They took the % based progression table and replaced it with a table that was still % based progression but allowed the player to determine where he would put his points based on the type of rogue he wanted to play.

I think with out to much trouble you could come up with a system that uses the spirit of the 2nd edition table while adapting it to the d20 rule set.

Remove X skill points from the 3.x edition rogue and allow them to place those skill points into a pool at which every level they can spend those points on thier rogue based skills. This would do two things, it would remove the rogue based skills from the "Secondary Skill" table and it would still allow the Rogue to place skill points into different skills allowing the player to build the rogue the way they want.

Of course with Pathfinder 3.75(Beta) this would have to be handled a different way since they have done way with most of the skill points and there are no cross-class skill penalties. I think this system would be a bit more difficult since they have gone through the skill system and reduced the number of skills even more.

Do I leave in Stealth, Disable Device for non-Rogues or take them out. Do I add back in abilities like Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Find/Remove Traps as Rogue class abilities and make them more defined? Some interesting questions.

JC

[tesral]

I think with out to much trouble you could come up with a system that uses the spirit of the 2nd edition table while adapting it to the d20 rule set.

Remove X skill points from the 3.x edition rogue and allow them to place those skill points into a pool at which every level they can spend those points on thier rogue based skills. This would do two things, it would remove the rogue based skills from the "Secondary Skill" table and it would still allow the Rogue to place skill points into different skills allowing the player to build the rogue the way they want.

That being exactly what I did. I also added a few more rogue features to allow for different kinds of rogue. Forgery and disguise as class features. Not every rogue is the sneak and steal type.

[gdmcbride]

To use an already used example; the Rogue and the Fighter using the "Stealth" skill. In no way should the fighter be able to "out stealth" the rogue. For the exact same reason the Rogue shouldn't and can't (by the numbers) out fight the Fighter. He can't wield all the weapons a fighter can and he can't wear all the armor a fighter can without negatives. So why should the fighter be able to be able to perform Rogue abilities as well as the Rogue? Can a fighter take skill ranks in Stealth and be a more stealthy fighter? Sure, and with Pathfinder Beta he can do it only 15% worse then a Rogue who is doing something that would be considered class defining.

And I whole-heartedly disagree.

Basically what your saying is "Your fighter doesn't match my idea of what a fighter should be. Take a -15% penalty for being too 'out of the box'". These sort of penalties usually succeed at keeping people carefully coloring inside the lines with skill choices. Choosing non-class skills is incredibly rare in my experience. And that's a shame. I like it when creativity is unleashed. It creates such interesting results. Gamers are so often full of wonderful ideas.

You mention by the way, weapon proficiencies. This is yet another way D&D (besides class features) rigidly enforces class identity without touching skills. So you're not happy with double layered class enforcement? Proficiencies and class features aren't enough? You need to triple layer your class enforcement?

I'm not saying your wrong. This is definitely a matter of taste. What I am saying, I don't care for that style of play. If a fighter wants to be stealthy, comes up with a good concept that supports that and invests points in it -- he should not be penalized.

Freedom freedom rah rah rah!

Gary

[gdmcbride]

Do I leave in Stealth, Disable Device for non-Rogues or take them out. Do I add back in abilities like Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Find/Remove Traps as Rogue class abilities and make them more defined? Some interesting questions.

JC

Taking out stealth as a class skill would require not just changing rogues. Three other core classes get stealth.

Hear Noise (the old thief ability) -- now Perception -- is possessed by six classes. Another baffling skill exclusion -- clerics and perception. Druids -- well, yes, obviously nature priests are perceptive. But clerics who worship say the Goddess of Wisdom? The Far-sighted God of Travel? The Elvish God of Archers? No. They must take their perception penalty and like it.

Pick Pocket -- now Sleight of Hand -- is also possessed by the Bard.

In fact, the only wholly unique skill that rogues get is Disable Device. Everything else they share with other classes.

And of course though rogues can pick a lock or disable a complex mechanical device -- they take penalties for understanding engineering. The dwarven rogue who fancies himself a tinkerer and a box man must accept that he will never be the equal of those true masters of complex technology and engineering -- fighters.

Gary

[Webhead]

D&D is a narrowly-defined, niche game of exclusivity. Each class has a very specific purpose and the abilities to encourage it. Various editions have tried to fill in the natural gaps that this leaves with "non-weapon proficiencies", "secondary skills", "Kits" or open multiclassing but it is still a game of very exacting detail. Your character can do X and Y based on your choice of class. Want to do Z? Then you better take a class that has Z in its niche.

I'm not defending this design philosophy. D&D has been that way from the beginning. It is a game of "roles" where each player decides ahead of time which "role" he wants to fill. That naturally structures and limits the game to certain degrees...and some people like that. I tend to prefer games that let players do what they will with their character, but that is not D&D.

But yeah, I'm still liking my "Adventurer class" idea. Everybody is an adventurer and you just take the abilities that you want your character to have. Wanna stealthy fighter who learned a little magic traveling with a band of gypsies? You got it!

[DMMike]

gdmcbride - multiclassing is an option for creating sneaky-fighters. Would this still be too-constraining?

Webhead - I think the biggest problem with the Adventurer class, and they may or may not have resolved this to a degree in D20 Modern, is game balance. To do this fairly, you need to quantitatively decide how much each skill and ability are worth. One reason for classes is that they've been playtested and balanced, and avoided the endless hours of playtesting and subjectivity that would be needed to make the ultimate generic class.

[Webhead]

...Webhead - I think the biggest problem with the Adventurer class, and they may or may not have resolved this to a degree in D20 Modern, is game balance. To do this fairly, you need to quantitatively decide how much each skill and ability are worth. One reason for classes is that they've been playtested and balanced, and avoided the endless hours of playtesting and subjectivity that would be needed to make the ultimate generic class.

Oh, I wasn't being entirely serious about the "Adventurer" as an all-in-one class replacement. No, were I going that route with my fantasy (to address balance issues as you mention), I would go in the direction of an effects-based, point-buy character creation system such as M&M (which I have been tempted to do at times). This removes the need for "classes" entirely. You have a plethora of abilities, each with associated costs based upon their game potency, and you are given a pool of points to spend however you choose. This allows the freedom to mix and match to do justice to the character concept. This is also excellent because the rules tell you the "what" but they do not tell you the "how" or "why". The rules only tell you what an ability does in "rules" terms. Two characters could have the exact same ability but describe it in completely different ways.

Such a system is perceived as "bad" by some folks because it lacks the structure of a more rigid system. In that instance, the game won't do your thinking for you, so you have to have a solid idea of what you want. Thus, the game only has as much "cool" as you bring to it.

[nijineko]

or you could play a chameleon.... ^^

i'm fond of choose your own abilities type systems, myself. =D

[gdmcbride]

gdmcbride - multiclassing is an option for creating sneaky-fighters. Would this still be too-constraining?

Requiring multiclassing leads to some odd consequences. For example, it requires that all fighters who want to be sneaky must take a level in one of four classes. So it is simply impossible to learn stealth without either:

a) learning to defuse mechanic traps better (regardless of whether you have any disable device skill)
b) learning how to relate to animals (regardless of whether you have any animal handling)
c) learning kung-fu (regardless of whether you are specialized in say long swords and always wear platemail)
d) learning magical singing (regardless of whether you have any knowledge of performance)

Will no one just teach you how to be sneaky? Of course, once you learn a little magical singing, you are sneaky forever. In fact, you are just as sneaky as a rogue. It all seems terribly odd.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against multiclassing in general. Multiclassing opens up more character options and you've probably guessed by now -- I'm in favor of that. REQUIRING multiclassing closes options -- I'm not in favor of that.

Why require these odd and perhaps concept breaking multi-classing when removing class skills is such an elegant solution?

Gary

[gdmcbride]

D&D is a narrowly-defined, niche game of exclusivity.

I can't entirely disagree with this statement. D&D has definitely been that at times during its history -- maybe all the time. But does it have to be?

What started this discussion for me is this statement in the Pathfinder Beta:


"Just before design began, a friend of mine asked me why no one ever seemed to take rogue beyond 2nd level or fighter beyond 4th level. This got me thinking. Far too many of the basic classes lose their luster after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes. While this option is still available, I wanted to give every class a reason to be followed up through 20th level. To this end, I have tried to add options to the game whenever possible. This principle goes beyond class powers, as well. From sundering to magic items, there are now more options and choices to make than ever before, each one opening up whole new avenues of character and adventure design." -- Pathfinder Beta pg. 3

Pathfinder is swimming upstream. Just as D&D 4th edition (a game by the way I enjoy and am currently running a campaign using more or less RAW) is more rigidly enforcing niches that ever before, Pathfinder has as one of its stated goals 'Add Options'. How wonderful! How commendable!

I plan to run some Pathfinder Beta playtests. And in my reports to Paizo, I plan to make the case against class skills. I also realize, I will very likely fail to change anything. I will be stunned if class skills aren't in Pathfinder 1.0.

Who knows if I'll ever actually run a Pathfinder campaign? I have a lot of great RPGs sitting on my shelf -- an embarrassment of riches. If if I ever do, I know what house rule one will be:

1. No Class Skills.

Gary

[Webhead]

I can't entirely disagree with this statement. D&D has definitely been that at times during its history -- maybe all the time. But does it have to be?...

For me, in a word, no...but then, the further you want to get away from the core design of D&D (which is an intensively role-centric game), the more it starts to make sense to look at other options as a starting point (such as M&M, for my purposes). Part of that is me wanting to do as little rules tweaking as possible to reach my "comfort zone" with a game. If I want a more open and flexible experience from D&D, I'll tend to look for a more open and flexible system to work with.


Who knows if I'll ever actually run a Pathfinder campaign? I have a lot of great RPGs sitting on my shelf -- an embarrassment of riches. If if I ever do, I know what house rule one will be:

1. No Class Skills.

And I can agree with that. Ideally, D&D would be without class skills to allow a character to justify their skills through background development. It can be jarring sometimes how D&D shoehorns character classes down a certain path, but for most that's just casualties that they are willing to accept for added structure.

But I think every RPG is what you make it. If you don't like stuff (like Class Skills), change it. The moment you buy the book, it becomes your game and you are responsible for making it into what you want to play. Just be sure to be clear with your players about any house rules that you make and everything should work out fine.

[nijineko]

i've been known to fiddle with class skills and favored classes. i have one character whom i wanted to have a different favored class from the racial standard. so as part of their background history, i gave them a mixed heritage. they have all the racial features of one race, except for the favored class which is that of the other race. i also included some atypical physical features common to the other race which sets them apart from their own race visually. while it has a use mechanically, it makes for deeper detail and more interesting background.

i've also been known to make use of "education packets" from the dragonstar setting to fix issues with class skills.

[Webhead]

i've been known to fiddle with class skills and favored classes. i have one character whom i wanted to have a different favored class from the racial standard. so as part of their background history, i gave them a mixed heritage. they have all the racial features of one race, except for the favored class which is that of the other race. i also included some atypical physical features common to the other race which sets them apart from their own race visually. while it has a use mechanically, it makes for deeper detail and more interesting background.

i've also been known to make use of "education packets" from the dragonstar setting to fix issues with class skills.

Yes, I never cared for the "favored multiclass" rules either. If you're going to go for more open multiclassing, why add the caveat of penalizing for exploring outside a "favored class"? I tend to ignore that rule.

The "education packets" reminds me of the (very cool) lifepath system that the Victoriana RPG uses. For each developmental "stage" of your character's origin, you pick the most appropriate "life path" that matches what your character's life was like and that tells you which skills you can spend skill points on at that stage. At the end of the process, your character is the sum of the skills that your character acquired based on his actual history. Of course, the game puts a heavy emphasis on the segregation between lower, middle and upper class citizens, so it is a little more "enforced" that way than traditional D&D. Still, something to think about...