Pathfinder General /pfg/

>what makes them unique
Access to the not inconsiderable shaman spell list as well as the full sorcerer/wizard spell list via wandering lore spirit/arcane enlightenment

Do you know why you never hear about them? Because there were 10 classes in the Advanced Class Guide. Seven of them range from amazing, like the skald and hunter, to solid but uninspired, like the bloodrager or slayer. One of them is the swashbuckler. The other two are the arcanist, which is well known as the biggest cheese class, and the shaman, which fills the same role, and is the third strike against the book.

Your opinion is valid, and I'm sorry you don't enjoy the feat. However, we do not believe that a +6 to a small number of skills warps the game to the extent you believe it does - at least, not in the majority of campaigns. Especially given those resources are resources spent not becoming better at combat.

I'll chime in and say I don't think it's boring at all. You're not the only one using the avowed, user!

>What is Charm Person

Social Graces is +4! +4!

>what is charm person
>what is suggestion

Bards got spells, man

The feat isn't the fucking problem, the clauses themselves are. I will list why:
>at low levels it messes balance between avowed and non-avowed
A bard, for instance, can no where near compete with an avowed at knowledges at level 1, something bards are supposed to be good at. Avowed have +5 across the board to outclass them at it.
>they're boring
flat bonuses are extremely boring and uninspired, these are extremely boring and uninspired

>lel charm person
>because you can always use mind control magic with no repercussions
People who shout "charm person" are cancer because using charm person has massive repercussions in any conditions where you can't just kill the person once you have the information. I am also talking about level 1 when you limited access to those charm persons. Also charm person has a saving throw, it doesn't just happen.

What about a flat +6 bonus is interesting? Please explain it to me I want to understand your position.

>And what about the guy who wanted to be a suave non-avowed, and is being outdone by the avowed because of this bonus?

"What about the guy who wanted to hit things hard, and is being outdone by the barbarian because of rage?"

"What about the guy who wanted to Ex-debuff in melee, and is being outdone by the unchained rogue because of debilitating injury?"

"What about the guy who wanted to buff his party, and is being outdone by the bard because of inspire courage?"

The avowed's skill boosters are a fucking massive cost, user. You only get 5 least clauses per character normally, and they're often gonna be spent on non-skill stuff.

Ok, I am going to put forth another example.

Let us say someone wants to go for knowledge skills, reasonable enough right? Let's say it's a bard. They have a class feature all about this.

A level 3 bard, a reasonable level to start at, has +1 to all knowledge skills. A level 3 avowed who took the clause has +6. The bard is a full 25% worst across the board and will be worse until he is level 14 (or 7 if he steals the clause via a feat).

Or let us say for diplomacy. If a man doesn't want to just use mind control he is beaten easily by an avowed. Mind control is most times not an option for MANY reasons. People don't fucking like when you use mind control, so unless you never have to talk to the guy again you likely can't just use it on him.

Or stealth. An avowed has a +6 to stealth at level 1 compared to any other class. How are they supposed to compete?

At low levels what ever the avowed chooses to be good at he will be better at it than any other class who tries to invest in it.

Why is this good design?

THIS!
If you have something at your access and it doesn't break the game (looking at you, wizard spells), why aren't you using it? Rage to get stronger smacking isn't busted, but you're a fucking idiot if you complain that your Inquisitor isn't doing as much damage as a Barbarian. Using a clause isn't busted to get a +6 to a skill or three, but you're retarded if you're complaining that your Fighter isn't as smart or talented as a Bard, Alchemist, Investigator, or yes even an Avowed.

>What about a flat +6 bonus is interesting? Please explain it to me I want to understand your position.

I like having bigger numbers on my character sheet. Looking at skill DC tables, especially at lower levels, and finding things the game lets me do as a result of these numbers is fun to me.

A +6 bonus to a couple useful skills is a bonus that feels on par with stuff like "walk on walls," "shoot lightning from your hands," and "see invisible things and in magical darkness."

A bonus less than that does not.

Any skills the avowed chooses to invest in no class can match him at. If no one can even be comparable when they also specialize in the thing then that is a problem. Classes who specialize in the same thing should be roughly equal in how good they become at it. The ceilings should be neat the same. Avowed push the ceiling a lot higher for themselves.

>At low levels what ever the avowed chooses to be good at he will be better at it than any other class who tries to invest in it.

At the cost of literally every part of his utility stuff. This is like complaining that a barbarian who focuses on hitting things hits things hard, user.

Because the Avowed ALSO INVESTED IN IT, YOU FUCKFACE. They don't get the Clause and then something else; you're throwing away a clause that could be doing something literally impossible to do (like walking on walls and ignoring difficult terrain, or breathing underwater and in the vacuum of space, or being able to have a rider effect on your main source of damage), in order to... be good at some skills. Which anyone can do with investment, moreso now that the feat exists. So you used up one of your resources, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD, to be good at something, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD.

Oh for fuck's sake. You can make a competitive damage dealer without having to find a way to get rage. There exist other buff builds that can do it as well as a bard. What options do you have except going for that clause if you want to get knowledges?

Except now my fighter can just spend a feat, something he has plenty of, and be better than the bard, alchemist, and investigator, unless they also pick that feat. By saying "That wasn't good enough, it needs to be buffed," you've created an arms race. And no one wins.

The investment of a single least clause. They will get another to do whatever else they want with it at the next level. And the level after that. And the one after.

>Classes who specialize in the same thing should be roughly equal in how good they become at it

Your comparison point is a bard who has bardic knowledge and spends every single one of his spells per day on stuff, then.

So you're saying that big numbers are interesting because they are big numbers? They are on par with actual abilities and things to do with skills.

Shit I don't fucking know how to argue with such a shit opinion. I suppose you're entitled to it, but god damn.

The bard, the guy who is supposed to be pretty good at knowledges, is incapable of competing with the Avowed at knowledge until past level 10 unless he takes a feat to try and get an Avowed class feature.

The fact is the Avowed is better at their specialization than classes who also specialize in the same thing while bringing nothing interesting to the table besides that number.

Literally it is just big numbers for big numbers, those numbers are boring.

>The bard, the guy who is supposed to be pretty good at knowledges

"Supposedly" but is not, because Bardic Knowledge is shit.

Ok, so he also invested in it. That means for his investment he should be much better than other people who invested in it? Fucking what? What is your reasoning here because I am not seeing it.

The opportunity cost for clauses is less than FUCKING ROGUE TALENTS. I mean holy fuck.

>Because the Avowed ALSO INVESTED IN IT, YOU FUCKFACE.

Except the bard ALSO invested in it. He took a level in bard to get Bardic Knowledge.

1/2 level to knowledge checks and can used them untrained.

My issue with least clauses isn't 'They make you good at skills'. it's that 'They are so very frontloaded'. At level 1, +6 to a skill is 'Half or more of your bonus to that skill' while at level 10 it's a much smaller part of that.

I'd lean towards making them 1/2 level so they match the Inquisitor's boost to Sense Motive or the Bard's boost to knowledge skills.

I think literally anything else in the game would have to make a larger investment for the same returns. Really I think the Vigilante's Social Grace is the closest comparison.

So when someone releases the Unchained Bard and it gives you +6*level to all skills then maybe you'd have a point.

So the avowed deserves to be much better than the bard at it because the bard only gets 1/2 level to all knowledges?

Ok ok, what do you consider "not shit" at level 1? How big does the bonus have to be? Is 6 your cut off because avowed has it on the fucking PDFs?

You know what baffles me the most? This guy keeps going on about how the skill numbers are boring and shitty because they're numbers, but is also maintaining that it's bad because people who want to have fun with numbers will want to take it.

Is it boring or is it fun and useful, user?

I don't blamed the Avowed. I blame Pathfinder. Stupid busted system.

Fucking explain to me the following:
>how does frontloading the ability so much make it balanced with other class's features at low levels?
>why should there be clauses that add nothing but numbers rather than actual class features (the knowledge one gets a pass because it lets you make them untrained)?

It's such a small fucking investment.

We chose +6 because it was the bonus the Warlock gained. We stayed with +6 because that was what we believed was a big enough bonus to feel meaningful compared to the other options available as Least clauses, especially due to the lack of combat benefits.

>I'd lean towards making them 1/2 level so they match the Inquisitor's boost to Sense Motive or the Bard's boost to knowledge skills.

Okay, let's assume that they're entertaining this opinion. How is this fun, cool, and useful on the same level of the non-skill-boost least clauses? Every ability needs to be fun when you pick it, that's the fucking point of a subsystem. "I pick an ability that costs me my entire level's stuff and it's 100% worthless until another 6-10 levels in the future" is not good design.

Because you're somehow missing the fact that other clauses exist. Oh boy, skills, that's really cool compared to SHOOTING LIGHTNING AND FLYING.

Abilities that do nothing but give numbers are boring.

Having +50 to a skill so that you are simply the best at it is both boring, uninspired, and bad game design for balance between other classes.

+50 is an exaggeration to make a point, +6 is still much more than any other class can muster at level 1, the closest you get is Social Grace as +4 to 1 skill.

Things can be bad game design, poorly balanced, boring and uninspired.

This managed to be all of them.

Explain your reasoning.

>It's such a small fucking investment.

It's really not. It's your entire goddamn level.

Come to 5e, friend.

Good, if you're only in it for big flashy things you were never going to pick the skill boost in the first place. If you want to be an avowed skill monkey then it's still on the table.

So is the Bard's entire level. I mean, if the bard spends all his spells on 'Be good at skills' he can't actually match the Avowed in those skills WHILE the spells are up. Let alone when they are not.

>This managed to be all of them.

This is your opinion, and I guess that's all I can really say there. My opinion is that it's decent design, a fun ability, and feels great to pick.

The designers of the avowed seem to agree with me. Though you really need to convince them, not me.

I'm going to bed, it's 1am here and I'm too tired for this.

Yeah, it's a dumb fucking idea. Make them give new ways to use the fucking skills and a scaling bonus. Make them interesting abilities rather than the shit it is now.

Jesus christ it's like you learned how to design games on Paizo's forums. It's embarrassing.

> How is this fun, cool, and useful on the same level of the non-skill-boost least clauses?
It isn't, that's why it's shit. They need to actually give you new things to do rather than just bonuses because just numbers are boring and uninspired.

The fact other things exist does not excuse these from being imbalanced when played against other classes and boring. Just slapping bigger numbers on it was the worst fucking path to take.

>If you want to be an avowed skill monkey then it's still on the table.

Except that the avowed is a 4 skill point class with a Cha focus. They can't skillmonkey for shit without the large boosts. +1/2 level is NOT ENOUGH to actually be good at a skill.

>Jesus christ it's like you learned how to design games on Paizo's forums. It's embarrassing.

haha what. "It's embarrassing" that someone has a different opinion than you on what makes for a useful skill ability? Man, you are really salty about this.

I hope they fucking leave it, just to spite you

If a bard spends his entire level on it he is still worse.

And the avowed gets shapes in addition to clauses, and other class features like bonus feats.

>This is your opinion, and I guess that's all I can really say there. My opinion is that it's decent design, a fun ability, and feels great to pick.
>+6 is a fun well designed ability
I can not wrap my head around why someone would think this.

Write something better then or fuck off. All you're doing is repeating the same thing, over and over, without actually saying anything new.

No, I get that. My issue is that it's got basically zero scaling to it which makes the class too dipping friendly/too front loaded.

I mean, there isn't a level 1 SPELL that gives that big a bonus to those skills and they are short term. It says something when spells are losing out to this effect.

I'd much rather see them get something like the Spellburst Savant by the same dev. 'Take this and all knowledge skills are now Charisma based' and you can use them untrained. It makes them very good at those skills without making them utterly eclipse other people focusing on them.

And yet bards still somehow manage it with just those extra 2 skill points per level. And versatile performance, of course, adding another 2 every now and then, but neither one of those make them better at a skill, just gives them more skills that they can be okay at.

>haha what. "It's embarrassing" that someone has a different opinion than you on what makes for a useful skill ability? Man, you are really salty about this.
It's embarrassing that he thinks it's good design, because it isn't.

They are 2 skill ranks per level behind bard but more than make up for it just with that sweet +6 to all knowledges.

>I can not wrap my head around why someone would think this.

Good for you! I can wrap my head around why someone might not, but for me, and many others, it's fun.

You're not the only one who plays the game, not the only one using the class, and your opinion isn't objectively right. The game supports multiple playstyles.

So why don't kindly take a moment to step back and realize this? ^_^;

... You want to change the +6.
Into a bonus that could instead be upwards of +8 by 6th level.

... Really great design.

>It's embarrassing that he thinks it's good design, because it isn't.

And that is your opinion! I'm sure they're taking it into consideration.

>write something better or fuck off
It's a playtest you fuckwit. The point is to tell the devs "Hey, this is way too fucking strong," and then it's their job to fix it, or admit that they don't want their class to be used.

I /like/ the avowed. I want to play the avowed, and allow my players to play the avowed, but I'll gladly throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

I did give fucking suggestions. I posted them It doesn't have to be those, that isn't the point here.

I'm saying abilities that give front loaded large bonuses and bring nothing else to the table are boring.

People apparently disagree with 'big numbers are interesting for being big numbers'. Ok, fine, what ever.

Are they more interesting than actual new uses for the skill?

Would you rather take abilities that give you new ways to use your skills rather than just give 'big numbers'?

Because what I would do is actually design clauses that let you use your skills to do cool and new things rather than just give increases bonuses. Heck maybe even give both, but not frontloaded so it messes with early level balance.

Yes, I do.

However, it's not an additional bonus. It's changing which stat the skill is based on.

>You're not the only one who plays the game, not the only one using the class, and your opinion isn't objectively right.

Not him, but that's why people are arguing about it.

That doesn't make you any more right than it makes him wrong.

Ok I want to understand and see where people are coming from. I will take a step back.

Someone explain to me the following:
>Why is a flat bonus to a skill an interesting and well designed ability?
>Is it more interesting than new ways to use your skills?

I am trying to see your points of view so I can explain mine better.

>make the Cha-based class get a scaling +4 to +13 bonus that will be +6 by level 8 at a minimum, and then continue to eclipse the existing one

Well done, user. You are a good designer. The avowed with a +0 Int mod has no change here other than the bigger bonus.

>It's a playtest you fuckwit. The point is to tell the devs "Hey, this is way too fucking strong," and then it's their job to fix it, or admit that they don't want their class to be used.

Insulting their work is all fine and dandy, but personal insults just make you sound like a shitter who can't handle actual discussion.

Holy shit could you sound like any more of a faggot. You realize we are talking about the balance of a playtest right? It's the fucking purpose of the playtest.

>Explain your reasoning.
The devs here are trying to balance this mechanic internally. Problem is, that's fucking stupid because it doesn't matter if +6 to face skills is worse than scent, or a +4 will save scaling with charisma in a vacuum. No one is going to take Silver Tongue or Blend In unless they're making use of it. +15 diplomacy or stealth at 1 on such a small commitment can tear the right book apart, or the wrong book if the player's right enough an asshole.

AND THIS IS FINE, ACTUALLY. Because people who build at something should be fucking good at it. Except we get to the next issue. No one else is able to commit so little to be so fucking good in this way. I think we can all easily acknowledge that +6 to any given skill is at least good at level 1, because the next best thing is +4 to a smaller range.

But as other user autistically mentioned, Barbarians are better at hitting shit, Wizards break everything, so if you're making the comparisons there, whatever, forget Avowed, someone else is going to tear a hole in the universe their way.

And that's just a fundamental issue of Pathfinder. You are always best off picking a strategy and becoming a god at it, while becoming as good as possible at ignoring everything else. The problem with Avowed becomes not so much, "I'm too good at this", or, "I'm better than everyone else at this", but, "I'm better at everyone else at this at the smallest expenditure I possible".

And Wizards are even worse, but you know, that's Pathfinder for you. So I don't blame Avowed, the devs are building the class so it competes, I blame the core mechanics making this what it has to do to be relevant. If that makes any sense, it was half unintelligible in my head.

autism speaks

>+0 int mod
>In Pathfinder

Do you hate skill points? The avowed wouldn't have enough skill points to actually take advantage of those least clauses with that little.

You also assume the avowed will utterly monofoucus Cha. You know they removed Spirited Swordplay so you actually need other stats now. The devs themselves said they want the Avowed to need to focus on 3 stats.

>people fucking lose their minds when DHB builds a skill monkey avowed
>people defend the clauses he took like holy text when questioned
Like pottery

>Why is a flat bonus to a skill an interesting and well designed ability?

Because skills are fun, especially at low levels, to a lot of people.

>Is it more interesting than new ways to use your skills?

Depends on the skill uses. In a lot of cases, yeah, because it enables you to use the skills at all, instead of forcing you to invest the rest of your character resources into using the ability you spent a massive opportunity cost on.

I think the difference here is outlook.

You're looking at it as "this is a boring numbers boost."

We're looking at it as "this boost makes us able to use the skills to affect the world! Kickass!"

Jesus, what? I'm not insulting the avowed devs at all. They're trying their best and I'm telling them, along with plenty of other people in this thread, that right now, their best is not right. I am insulting the person who thinks that you can shut down discussion of playtest balance with "That's just your opinion, man." Yeah, and a lot of people share it, and would prefer for the avowed to have balance out of the box rather than have to stick another set of homerules on a 3rd party class to prevent it from being too strong.

>We're looking at it as "this boost makes us able to use the skills to affect the world! Kickass!"

And what about the people going 'There is literally nothing else that gets a bonus that big or even close so it's too big for level 1'?

So why is the avowed the only person who's allowed to have that from levels 1-6?

Yo, anyone got a copy of Starjammer? I'm running Iron Gods soon and I want to look over the races/equipment inside.

Isn't ironskin monk shit?

Well, it has now.

Thanks for that.

Here's the thing y'all are missing.
Why is an Avowed taking the skills that supposedly "make them better than someone who's investing in it" if there's already someone in the party investing in those skills?
If you've got a Bard or Investigator, who is a Knowledge-Monkey, why are you spending your resources to be good at Knowledge when you could be doing anything else? If you're taking that Clause, you don't have competition because you ARE the party's primary Knowledge-Bot. Same with Silver Tongue; if you're taking it, you're the party's face. If you're not taking it, someone else already has the role of face.

This is a cooperative game; you don't have to be able to do everything better than everyone else and compete against them at their own jobs. If they're the face, if they're the knowledgebot, if they're the disable-device-er and sneaky guy, then you're the guy that's shitting lightning. If nobody in the party is one of those roles, you can take on that role without needing to completely respec your character for it.

So what I ask is the following, what does /pfg/ prefer?

>Front loaded fairly large flat bonus to a range of skills
>Smaller scaling bonus that also gives new uses for the skills

Which would be more preferable as a class feature to take?

Heck the scaling bonus should at level 20 be bigger than +6.

A 2->4->6->8 bonus would be what I would see as best honestly. If I were to do it I would do the following:
>Starts at +2 with new use of skill, upgrades to +4 at 6th level, improves on new use of skill, upgrade to +6 at 12th level, give second new use of skill(s), upgrades to +8 at 18th level gives upgrade to second new use of skill(s)

I would also break the skills up differently as:
>knowledges
>bluff/disguise
>diplomacy/intimidate
>stealth/sleight of hand

>You're looking at it as "this is a boring numbers boost."
I am looking at it more as:
>this boost outpaces anyone else who tries to invest in it for the same level of opportunity cost

Giving a boost is not a problem. Giving a boost and having no one else being able to invest a similar opportunity cost ability to see close to the same returns is. The whole Social Grace being the next best thing and much worse issue.

>We're looking at it as "this boost makes us able to use the skills to affect the world! Kickass!"
This is a good thing.

A smaller less front loaded bonus that also gives new ways to use your skills would be far preferable.

As an addendum to this guy's question, even if the feat was available from level 1, why should a person have to blow a feat to be good at their skills?

Just like it's not a problem for the barbarian to be killing shit infinitely easier than the swashbuckler, right?

Cuz it's a team game.

i'm here to help

"No competition parties" are not a reasoning for some classes to simply be better at specialization that both supposed should be able to invest in.

Why should anyone ever have a bard for knowledges when it could be an avowed, if the avowed will simply be better at it for most of the game?

The fact you will not have two people who invest in the same thing is no reasoning to got two classes ceilings when investing to be different.

If you think it is you may actually be a retard.

And avowed should be the only one who gets that big on a bonus before level 14? Why?

>Insulting their work is all fine and dandy, but personal insults just make you sound like a shitter who can't handle actual discussion.
Trying to shut down playtest discussion with "it's just your opinion" is fucking asinine.

>you can take on that role without needing to completely respec your character for it
No user that is exactly the problem here.

Also skill overlap in parties is fine because it's a roleplaying game.

That's because the Barbarian and Swashbuckler SHOULD be the same role, but one is infinitely worse.
An Avowed CAN be a role, but isn't required to be one. They CAN be a primary damage dealer, but if their party is Blaster Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Inquisitor, they can instead be the skillmonkey or the tactician of the party. The COULD be good at knowledges, but if you've already got a Wizard, a Bard, and an Investigator, then maybe you should be a blaster instead?
>Why should anyone ever have a bard for knowledges when it could be an avowed, if the avowed will simply be better at it for most of the game?
Because you don't want to be an Avowed? Because you want actual spells instead of clauses? Because you want Bardic Masterpieces? Because you want fucking Initiating and to be a Rubato?

It's a team game. It doesn't matter if anyone is better than anyone else! We're not competing.

If you can't see what's wrong with your post then there is not a lot we can do to help you.

Having two classes who can be the same role and one being much better than the other is a problem. As a knowledge monkey an Avowed is better until level 14 and is FAR better at low levels.

This is a problem.

How are you not seeing that? You fucking talked about it in your post.

You shouldn't be able to be better than your Bard that built to face by casually investing your flex clause away after picking up tools for your build.

>Wizards being so much stronger than fighters is A-Okay!

user, consider your words.

Welp nobody responded with interest after an hour so imma just leave this here while I go to bed. Message my roll20 account if ye've got questions and concerns and i'll reply to 'em.

app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/71015/a-generic-pathfinder-adventure-title

Hidden knowledge and silver tongue are already ludicrously front-loaded for granting a +6 untyped bonus to a wide swath of skills, but where they truly get ludicrous is the dragon betrothed's 4th-level ability:

>Draconic Concert (4th): Whenever you use a clause with the betrothed descriptor, that clause and the first non-betrothed clause cast by you or your companion before the end of your next turn gains one of the following benefits. Alternatively, you can focus as a standard action to gain one of these benefits with a clause that is currently affecting you (such as a permanent clause).

>All numeric measurements of a burst, emanation, or spread-shaped clause are increased by 100%.
>A clause that creates a number of 10-foot cubes creates twice as many cubes as normal.
>Creatures affected by the clause lose immunity to mind-affecting effects for one round.
>The next skill check you make within before the end of your next turn gains double the bonus normally granted by the clause.
>Creatures making saving throws against clauses enhanced in this way must roll twice on their saves, using the lower result.

Option #4 turns hidden knowledge and silver tongue into a staggering +12 bonus, and that is just not right.

user I was being sarcastic. I was saying if you saw nothing wrong with that statement there is a problem.

Hey /pfg/, how would you stat him?

You chose a bad time to post. Mechanics debates are the strongest power on Veeky Forums, not even waifus can compare.

Oh shit nigga that's dumb, that's really dumb.

>tfw at level 4 I have better bardic knowledge than a level 24 bard

>avowedfags will defend this

Oh jesus christ. That is a lot of bonus.

Actually a Bushi Brutal Slayer Stalker probably.

No, we won't. That's definitely too high for first level, regardless of your opinion on the base bonus, and we'll work on a solution.

I've never looked at Avowed before and I'm pretty sure now that I never will.

I'm working on a setting where one of the continents never developed Vancian arcane spellcasting. The people's there have made due with creating pacts with higher powers, spell-like abilities, physic abilities, and so on.

Any idea on what else to do here? Unique race ideas or societal implications of this?

Forget Silver Tongue, I need to figure out what kind of acrobatics shenanigans I can get up to.