|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I haven't been playing with XP for a while in my real life campaign; it really doesn't serve a purpose beyond giving players an idea of when they're going to level up and sometimes creates level discrepancies. We've just resorted to leveling up after X number of sessions, which saves time doing math and dealing with some players having more experience than other players.
Who says an experienced rogue doesn't have the ability to look for multiple openings while they're attacking? I don't understand this from a mechanical or realistic stand point. Do you want the rogue to be an NPC class, or are you convinced that they actually have something to offer that spellcasters can't already do?
I suggest three to four hour sessions with a couple of breaks in between.
For new players:
Also make sure that you watch how they react to certain things such as roleplay and combat. Some groups are more combat oriented, some like to roleplay, and others are somewhere in between. You want them to play how they want to play, but also encourage them to do some things they wouldn't normally do.
I personally think that classes should be stripped of their fluff and made solely for statistically character development. That way people have more liberty when creating their own personal character to fit their backstory. Also I'm wondering what Tom actually knows what balance is considering he praises traditional D&D and says that 4e is balanced. I personally think that arbitrarily lowering bab will not solve the problem with fighters. Rather it'll just limit character creation freedom and funnel certain classes into a support role. Bards will no longer be viable as melee skirmishers or archers. No one will play the barbarian considering the fighter will be explicitly the best melee class. The cleric will never be able to hybrid again effectively. Both the inquisitor and magus will never be played again. If you really want to improve the balance of the game I suggest buffing the fighter rather then making some classes unplayable and pushing others into the full caster role.
This is a discussion about the most silliest and/or ridiculous characters you've seen played. One of my friends played a half vampire in 4e and he was convinced that his character had to act like a savage. We were playing a heroic campaign. He even ripped the head off a head of a dead guard and started to drink the blood from it in front of the captain of the guard. Another funny character was a rogue with no ranks in stealth, disable device, or perception. This rogue also had a flaming weapon which he tried to stealth with on. I've also seen a paladin will a penalty to cha and int try to walk down some stairs on their mount.
The fighter is weaker than the paladin and if you're arguing otherwise you're a fool. They deal slightly less damage when not smiting however that doesn't matter. They have better saves, access to spells, immunities, have the ability to heal themselves and still make full attacks, are better at social skills, and crush enemies to dust when they have smite up. Since cha is a secondary stat for paladins they can go into the orc bloodline which means they will have a higher strength score then the fighter. A paladin won't cause a tpk because of mind affecting spells however a fighter will. On top of that we can throw away the statements of a fighter having better armor considering what spells the paladin has access to.
There are two ways people typically build characters. Make a concept up and build around it using stats or pick a class they like make a build and build a story around it. Either way works honestly and it's often better to go with the latter because the game has already built in options for you to play your character the way you want it to play.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I love the alchemist though. -tear-
Tiann Ceriagh'u wrote:
Except when the DM is wrong. This isn't just the Dm's game. It's everyone's game and should be treated as such. Rule 0 is a bad rule.