Pathfinder: Forget the best, let's find the worst.

[radionausea]

Also, at some point the flurry rules were changed so that you have to TWF to use it (and you can't dual-wield two unarmed strikes).

Apparently they are revisiting and reworking this bat-shit mental decision.  I'll believe it when I see it though.

[Fadier]

Also, at some point the flurry rules were changed so that you have to TWF to use it (and you can't dual-wield two unarmed strikes).

This also screws with the Zen Archer, but that makes sense cause its a good monk archetype.


Until the ARG revamped them the Goblin Rogue's favored class option (Goblins of Golarion pg 31) was "Add +1 skill rank—this skill rank must be spent on Ride or Stealth.". So instead of 1 skill rank in any skill you can get a skill rank in stealth or ride! What a benefit.

[Squirel_Dude]

Also, at some point the flurry rules were changed so that you have to TWF to use it (and you can't dual-wield two unarmed strikes).

Apparently they are revisiting and reworking this bat-shit mental decision.  I'll believe it when I see it though.

I honestly don't care if they change it back to normal, cause I'm just going to pretend that dumb of a change was never made in the first place. Why would you make a monk need two weapon fighting, which is a terrible feat tree in the first place.

If you're going to make each hand a weapon, then they should be treated as "natural weapons" and allow the monk to take those feats as well. But no, apparently monks deserved to be nerfed because people should be punished for wanting to play a class with flavor.

[veekie]

Also, at some point the flurry rules were changed so that you have to TWF to use it (and you can't dual-wield two unarmed strikes).

Apparently they are revisiting and reworking this bat-shit mental decision.  I'll believe it when I see it though.

I honestly don't care if they change it back to normal, cause I'm just going to pretend that dumb of a change was never made in the first place. Why would you make a monk need two weapon fighting, which is a terrible feat tree in the first place.

If you're going to make each hand a weapon, then they should be treated as "natural weapons" and allow the monk to take those feats as well. But no, apparently monks deserved to be nerfed because people should be punished for wanting to play a class with flavor.

SKR has mentioned before that he believes eastern mystics and guns alike have no place in the setting. He was overruled on that by fan demands, but would do whatever he can to poop on those.

Of course, you could just look at the 3.5 publications he was involved in for a taste of what he likes to do anyway.

[Libertad]

A few more things:

• Mundane fear effects do not stack. Magical ones do. Whyyyyy.
• You cannot draw more than one alchemical item per round by any means. No justification is given for this. You can still draw multiple improvised weapons per round, including alchemical items treated as improvised weapons. Also alchemical items cannot deliver precision damage.
• Spiked chains are nerfed into oblivion, but other weapons still do the same thing.
• Class levels do not count as HD.
• Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) is illegal.
• Flying creatures and things without legs are immune to the Trip special attack.

To the bolded:  Caster Supremacy.

Seriously.  These changes and justifications are far too consistent and frequent to be a coincidence.

[Unbeliever]

I just feel like when I read Pathfinder stuff it's not so much caster supremacy -- that seems to be an unintended, though not completely disliked, consequence rather than an intentional design.

I just get this feeling along the lines of:  "you should be playing my way, and that's that."  And, "my way" means stuff like not really multiclassing or really not even engaging with the system in a lot of ways.  There seems to be this general frowning upon looking for or using combos that are not blisteringly obvious or intended.  Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot are fine, but you want to actually create some unanticipated synergy, no!  Ban him!  That sort of thing. 

The foregoing is, of course, exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for as a design philosophy in a game.

[Agita]

As veekie has said, if one looks at WotC publications that SKR had a hand in, one will relatively quickly notice a theme.
I went ahead and checked out what publications he co-wrote that I could find:
-Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, introducing mainstays such as the 3.0 Hathran, Red Wizard, and Archmage.
-Magic of Faerun, with the 3.0 Incantatrix, Mage Killer (a full casting PrC requiring 4th level spells), and Spelldancer, as well as a slew of spells.
-Savage Species, without much in the way of notable caster PrCs, but a few later staple spells such as Girallon Arms + Fuse Arms, Maw of Chaos, and Major/Superior Resistance.
-Ghostwalk, with a few mostly non-notable spells.
-Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which I don't have.
He's probably co-authored other things too, but these are the ones I could find by looking and checking his Wikipedia page. The sample size is small and correlation doesn't necessary imply causation, but it does provide ample grounds for suspicion.

[Bozwevial]

If you really need evidence about SKR's design philosophies, this is pretty much the last word on the matter.

[phaedrusxy]

If you really need evidence about SKR's design philosophies, this is pretty much the last word on the matter.

I don't think the "feat point" system is a bad idea itself, but the values he assigns the feats are... hilariously bad in many cases.

Light armor is usually so weak compared to no armor that it's a very small reward for taking the feat. Its main benefit is that once you have armor you can start putting enhancement bonuses and magic on it.

And ... he says Combat Casting is better than Skill Focus (Concentration) "since most of the time you're make Concentration checks are in combat so it's in your best interest to take this +4 feat over the general +3 feat" 

He says Combat Casting is worth 10 points, while Augment Summoning is worth 7.

[Libertad]

As veekie has said, if one looks at WotC publications that SKR had a hand in, one will relatively quickly notice a theme.
I went ahead and checked out what publications he co-wrote that I could find:
-Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, introducing mainstays such as the 3.0 Hathran, Red Wizard, and Archmage.
-Magic of Faerun, with the 3.0 Incantatrix, Mage Killer (a full casting PrC requiring 4th level spells), and Spelldancer, as well as a slew of spells.
-Savage Species, without much in the way of notable caster PrCs, but a few later staple spells such as Girallon Arms + Fuse Arms, Maw of Chaos, and Major/Superior Resistance.
-Ghostwalk, with a few mostly non-notable spells.
-Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which I don't have.
He's probably co-authored other things too, but these are the ones I could find by looking and checking his Wikipedia page. The sample size is small and correlation doesn't necessary imply causation, but it does provide ample grounds for suspicion.

I have it, and it's almost all fluff.  Nothing in the way of game mechanics other than brief listings of alignment and class/level of important NPCs.  But it's overall very good fluff which details the setting very well (and is the closest you'll get to a canon 3E Greyhawk).

[Bozwevial]

If you really need evidence about SKR's design philosophies, this is pretty much the last word on the matter.

I don't think the "feat point" system is a bad idea itself, but the values he assigns the feats are... hilariously bad in many cases.

The idea is on par with other point-buy systems and shares their weaknesses, but that's not quite so bad in this case since pretty much every D&D character is feat-starved. The values he sets are just god-awful, though. Natural Spell is worth five points where Manyshot is worth twelve.

[Halinn]

Very very few caster feats are worth as much as weapon focus under that. In fact, as far as I could tell, every metamagic feat was worth half a feat.

[phaedrusxy]

Natural Spell is worth five points where Manyshot is worth twelve.

Wow... I just... I don't know how to assimilate this information... 

How much is Leadership worth? 2?

[Bozwevial]

Natural Spell is worth five points where Manyshot is worth twelve.

Wow... I just... I don't know how to assimilate this information... 

How much is Leadership worth? 2?

Nah, 8. So only two points more than the 3-hp version of Toughness and two less than the 5-hp version. By extrapolating, Toughness is worth 4 hit points.

[midnight_v]

His "vision" for the game is what make me walk away so fast. I knew he and a few others in his stable felt that way, which is:
1. Why I couldn't get myself to ever convert over to his house-rules.
and
2. I suspect why designers hate to expose the philosophies that guide them.

(~_~) - sad.

[Keldar]

If you really need evidence about SKR's design philosophies, this is pretty much the last word on the matter.

Great, my tic is back.  I had just gotten rid of it.   His estimation of the value of feats is so off I can't even begin to cope with it.

[Unbeliever]

His "vision" for the game is what make me walk away so fast. I knew he and a few others in his stable felt that way, which is:
1. Why I couldn't get myself to ever convert over to his house-rules.
and
2. I suspect why designers hate to expose the philosophies that guide them.

(~_~) - sad.

Well said.  Although, I'd kind of like it if game designers were more transparent about their philosophies.  It would help with interpreting unclear rules and just getting a sense of what informs the deep logic of the game. 

Sometimes, that philosophy is going to be dumb.  "I don't like guns and monks" isn't really a design philosophy.  And, sabotaging concepts that you don't like as a game designer is the worst sort of chicanery.  But, I can at least imagine, perhaps quixotically so, that a game would be able to express its goals and design assumptions in such a way that would be helpful.  Maybe that's just wishful thinking, though.

[Agita]

As veekie has said, if one looks at WotC publications that SKR had a hand in, one will relatively quickly notice a theme.
I went ahead and checked out what publications he co-wrote that I could find:
-Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, introducing mainstays such as the 3.0 Hathran, Red Wizard, and Archmage.
-Magic of Faerun, with the 3.0 Incantatrix, Mage Killer (a full casting PrC requiring 4th level spells), and Spelldancer, as well as a slew of spells.
-Savage Species, without much in the way of notable caster PrCs, but a few later staple spells such as Girallon Arms + Fuse Arms, Maw of Chaos, and Major/Superior Resistance.
-Ghostwalk, with a few mostly non-notable spells.
-Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which I don't have.
He's probably co-authored other things too, but these are the ones I could find by looking and checking his Wikipedia page. The sample size is small and correlation doesn't necessary imply causation, but it does provide ample grounds for suspicion.

I have it, and it's almost all fluff.  Nothing in the way of game mechanics other than brief listings of alignment and class/level of important NPCs.  But it's overall very good fluff which details the setting very well (and is the closest you'll get to a canon 3E Greyhawk).

Does it require some kind of prior knowledge of the setting? If not, I might as well look for it since I know basically nothing about Greyhawk.

[Squirel_Dude]

A few more things:

• Mundane fear effects do not stack. Magical ones do. Whyyyyy.
• You cannot draw more than one alchemical item per round by any means. No justification is given for this. You can still draw multiple improvised weapons per round, including alchemical items treated as improvised weapons. Also alchemical items cannot deliver precision damage.
• Spiked chains are nerfed into oblivion, but other weapons still do the same thing.
• Class levels do not count as HD.
• Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) is illegal.
• Flying creatures and things without legs are immune to the Trip special attack.

To the bolded:  Caster Supremacy.

Seriously.  These changes and justifications are far too consistent and frequent to be a coincidence.

My one challenge to that claim would be that such is still the case in D&D 3.X. I'd like to at least think he would be smart enough to just keep writing 3.5 material if he wanted to have a world with super wizards, crappy monks, and no guns. Well, other than the lack of income if he did that. 

Honestly though, I think there is only so much you can do with wizards/clerics/druids to make them more in balance with the rest of the other classes, or vice versa before you get to 4th edition. But then again, everyone loves 4th edition, right?

[littha]

Honestly though, I think there is only so much you can do with wizards/clerics/druids to make them more in balance with the rest of the other classes, or vice versa before you get to 4th edition. But then again, everyone loves 4th edition, right?

There are actual things you could do... he just doesn't do any of them he actively makes the situation worse...