Pneumonica's page

Yeah I been thinking about this as well. I'd allow clerics to prepare spells from the domain.

Another domain related concern. How do I handle domains from classes other than cleric. More specifically the Divine Champion class from Complete Divine.

Apologies if this is a double-post. The forum appears to have swallowed my post. To summarize...

I can't address the OP, but this I can answer. WotC never supported open gaming except in core rules and a single supplement, plus four pages out of one of the later Monster Manuals. As a consenquence, none of the Complete works are OGC, and so cannot be used by Paizo or anybody else without some careful licensing from WotC that isn't forthcoming because they're moving to 4.

Yeah I been thinking about this as well. I'd allow clerics to prepare spells from the domain.

Another domain related concern. How do I handle domains from classes other than cleric. More specifically the Divine Champion class from Complete Divine.

I can't address the OP, but this I can answer - it's not OGC, and so it can't be touched on by Paizo. Unfortunately, WotC never supported open game content except for core rules and a single supplement (oh, and about four pages from one of the later Monster Manuals, and that was stuff pulled from other sources and not their own creations). Thus, the Complete guides are verboten, held behind the copyright law, and now that WotC is going to 4 their contents will likely remain unusable.

It seems like you're still lost in the skill ranks systems, with no real awareness of the rest of the picture. Maybe this will help.

Stealth will likely be possessed by a number of classes. Over time, I think we'll see that Armor check penalties and necessarily higher Dexterity will leave the Monk and Rogue at the top end of the Stealth game. Multi-classing Rogue into a spellcasting class is far more desirable than Fighter based on ACP, I should think.

ACP isn't a class feature, and having played fighters who preferred to wear very little armor (using a number of Complete Feats to make a dodge-and-maneuver fighter) I can tell you that the current system is making it extremely attractive to take the one level of Rogue on any Fighter.

Multi-classing a Rogue in 3.5 can be very effective if handled properly. If not, it's just another munchkin idea that doesn't lead to anything but an angry munchkin and an amused DM. Pathfinder hasn't done anything to change that...if anything it has simply highlighted the Multi-class characters inadequacies in certain combinations.

As an aside, I'd point out that Rogue should be the most multi-classed from...think how many characters from fantasy literature started out as thieves, vagabonds or street rats.

The problem is that there's little reason to progress as a Rogue. The evasion characteristics are available to other classes. Taking a single level of Rogue and then progressing as a Monk would give you more than you could ever want provided you didn't mind sacrificing Sneak Attack, which overall isn't too big a deal. Or you could go into Barbarian and reap the benefits of uncanny dodge. The only thing Rogues get at higher level is Sneak Attack - that's the only appeal to the class.

These are not supposed to be the 'best' powers of the wizard. These are supposed to be a flavorful alternative to using up precious spells. They should not be the best ability, otherwise there would be little use in actually using the spells available, which should be the primary attraction of the wizard class.

I thought they were called "specialists" for a reason. The CHA base makes their "specialist" abilities all but useless. I don't support adding INT and CHA together for it, but these are abilities they've learned well enough to know and always have at their fingertips. They are abilities mastered through diligence and practice. They aren't songs made famous, nor are they powers innate to the blood.

And if there are no exceptions to the "long standing" rules, then there are no hydras or beholders, either.

I take it that you never played AD&D?

Let's just say that the Munchkin card "Boil an Anthill (Go Up One Level)" is in there for a reason. The 3rd edition scaling XP system is complicated, but it was put in there for a reason to solve real problems that real people really had.

Real people also really have problems with traffic laws, and yet nobody suggests outlawing the car. Having played AD&D for a long count of years, I can say the scaling system was unneeded because sensible DMs actually read the lines in the DMG that said there was a difference between an encounter and a "gift", and encounters where the monsters don't have a chance shouldn't award XP (or, if the monsters are merely hamstrung, less XP, such as the case of the dragon who can't fly or field its breath weapon).

The reaction on my side of the world for one of my game groups was to simply not play. The skills system is simply wrong. In the words of one player, "What am I going to do with this?" They literally refuse to play the system.

I think some of the 1st level spells could be cantrips.

endure elements (maybe reduce the duration) - from a mechanical POV, this spell does *nothing*

hold portal - who memorizes this?

floating disk - maybe reduce the duration and size. No one ever memorizes this spell.

ventriloquism - too fun to not use occasionally; too weak to waste a 1st level spell slot on.

magic aura - reduce the duration. Fun for the whole family.

Thoughts?

Endure elements - re-read the mechanics. It does something, and at 1st level that something is quite useful.

Hold portal - I do.

Ventriloquism - Given what you can do with it, it's too useful to make it a cantrip (especially since cantrips can be used infinitely).

Floating disk and magic aura - Duration is irrelevant. You can cast cantrips infinitely.[URL=smurf][/URL]

2. Alpha cleric does the same thing. The lich takes some damage and says something more along the lines of "Ow! Quit it!"

Assume an 11th level lich. It'll have a Will Save of something like +11, and with +4 turn resistance it'll get +15 or more (assuming no significant modifications). This will give it a damn good chance against a level 11 cleric (DC 20 or so). Including the damage reduction granted by the turn resistance, this'll be something on the order of about 5 points of damage inflicted. I doubt it's too frightened, especially when it casts spells to protect itself from positive energy damage.

As for the calculation of when to do things, that sort of stuff happens all the time anyway, and is supposed to happen. It's tactical planning and risk assessment, two concepts at the heart of the game.[URL=smurf][/URL]

All in all I am VEEERRRYY excited about the new Pathfinder RPG. I have one issue that has bothered me since I began playing D&D back in 1978 and that is AC. Every character continues to excel in fighting expertise as they advance in level but there is never a corresponding expertise in defending oneself as one progresses. Instead one can only become harder to hit by the use of magical protections (whether armor, shields, or spells). I suggest there be a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) similar to the BAB that increases at various intervals based upon your character class. I do not think using the BDB one must choose between that or normal AC but they should be combined. I realize that OGL combat is very abstract but I still feel that includes a little more realism without altering the combat system much at all.

You're saying have a general combat bonus, a la True20 where your attack bonus and defense bonus are the same thing, and let it stack with AC? That's ludicrous. The only reason why it works in True20 is because armor doesn't provide a bonus to your AC/Defense, but rather absorbs damage.

Imagine two level four fighters, both in full plate with a shield. As it stands now, the level four fighter would need to have a heck of an ability bonus to reliably hit the other (and no argument - plate is supposed to be a tough nut to crack). If you let them add their BAB to their plate AC, they'll be looking at something on the order of an AC of 13, which will be well-on impossible for them to hit and impossible for anybody else. We go back to the Daleks, only nobody can hit anybody.[URL=smurf][/URL]

That beats the 3.5 version of being able to choose +5 to hit, +4 to hit, etc, and tailor it to your opponent.

I don't know what you're talking about - that is the better version. Are you assuming that the stronger characters are the bigger clod-poles, not able to tailor their attacks to a given foe?

And everybody else, who said what to get what now? I just want my avatar. And I've got it![URL=smurf][/URL]

Dazing Touch needs a duration! The Daze condition does not inherently last only one round and is only removed by heal and limited wish.

Yes it does.

A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

Unless stated otherwise, it manifestly lasts one round.

Fire - Fire

Air - Lightning
Water - Cold
Earth - Acid

Here's something I dislike. Why should Lightning be associated with Air, and not Sonic? [URL=smurf][/url]

Unnatural Beauty - Seems strange that a race without a charisma bonus would have this effect on people.

Makes perfect sense to me. Why should a pretty race gain a bonus to intimidate? Why should being pretty be a prerequisite for being persuasive, deceitful, or frightening? Being pretty has nothing to do with being a good speaker, eloquent, etc. Just look at your favorite model, actor, or athlete (of the pretty ones, I mean). [url=smurf][/url]

The fun would be in the roleplaying and tactical decision-making until perhaps level 4 when the PCs have some decent hp to lose and regain.

Gone would be the days of way-too-lucky goblin archers.

Hell, imagine a dire rat beating the party on initiative and critting and killing a lvl 1-2 PC before they even get a chance to speak. Explain that in flavor text as a DM...

"The rat leaps through the air mystifyingly, landing with a mouthful of the rogue's neck. The rogue collapses, blood spraying across the nearby dungeon wall."

Pretty ridiculous. Something needs to keep PCs alive long enough to give them a fighting chance to be a part of combat and a part of the story.

Why? I've seen nutria kill dogs in exactly the same way, and what's a nutria if not a dire rat? The thing that keeps PCs alive is PCs keeping themselves alive through planning, training, and execution. The fun lies in PCs having to sweat for a while, rather than just knowing that the rules are keeping them safe regardless of their choices.

And how does removing crits "keep them safe"? A monster with a crossbow can do 8 points of damage on a single attack anyway, more with bonuses. The rogue in your prior exemplar is killed just as dead.

The point of the game, one way or another, is that the PCs are never safe unless they're not adventuring, and even then the jury's still out. PCs can die, at any time, regardless, because that's what an adventure is. [URL=smurf][/url]

Running through some level 5 playtests with a 32 point buy Half Orc Monk using Pathfinder rules I found that the Monk was consistently overpowered by monsters of his level. I found the class to be weak in AC, damage output, attack chance. It was pretty bad.

A total overhaul is in order. Full BAB, real combat options, the works. As is he fights like an Aristocrat in a chain shirt.

-Frank

Define consistently, and what monsters did you use? How did you build the Monk?

1. Toss Stabilize and Bleed.

2. Modify Cure Minor Wounds: caster spends 1 hp to heal living target (or damage undead target) by 2 hps.

3. Modify Inflict Minor Wounds: caster spends 1 hp to damage living target (or heal undead target) by 2 hps.

Plausibility?

Purposeless as a change. You'll get a combination of any two of the classes that can cast zero-level healings to heal each other infinitely. And most parties that I've seen have two character types that can orison healings (Bard and Cleric, Bard and Druid, Druid and Cleric, Cleric and Cleric, Bard and Bard (admittedly a rare grouping), Druid and Druid (uncommon)).

Honestly the way the new Turning rules were written this ability will be used more often as a healing power than to turn.

I suggest that the power's name be "channeling positive energy" or "channelling negative energy".

When used agains undead you can say that "Channeling positive energy turns undead", or "You can use channeled positive energy to turn undead".

That way the term "turning" is still used so the sacred cow still lives. But the power's name itself needs to be changed.

Agreed. And also I think that's what the current plan is - they just either haven't come up with a new name or have retained the old name for a brief bit so as to make it clear where the bridge lies. Or was that a bridge to far? No, wait, that's the Skills debate. ;-p [URL=smurf][/URL]

Ross Byers wrote:

I'm sorry, but is there a difference between a fiddle and a violin? I was under the impression that the difference was in style of play, not the instrument itself.

You are right.

Thare are the same, but they do not share the same playing techniques.

Also, The violin was not invented during middle age. But there was a complete family of fiddle like instrument. But, It seems that violin and harpsichord are part of the Pathfinder world.

Still a Varisian Gypsies playing the violin (perform : folk) would not have the same technique, repertoire as a Korvosa noble (perform : academic) playing the "Tombeau ou Arvoden".

Period instruments from middle age were easy to learn & to play, they did not support the kind of complexity expected from modern symphonic orchestral music.

Make up your mind. You're saying that in the middle ages most people were expected to be reasonably proficient in playing an instrument and maybe a few folk dances or singing, and yet you want a single skill to be able to allow for multiple instruments, dancing in any format, singing in any style, etc. Then you want another skill to cover reading and writing music, stageplays, and symphonies, which to you is the "more complicated" performance (and yet as easy to learn as the other skill). You're also saying that the same instrument or close family of instruments handles both.

Frankly, if you want a simplified skills set that handles the divergence in style that you reccomend, there's already a solution made - it's the 3.5 core, designed and functional in the performance of doing just that. If you want instrument-for-instrument and act-for-act, that's even easier. Make it into Performance (specific instrument or specific activity). Your proposal just seems like reinventing the wheel into a square shape.[url=smurf][/url]

I'm with Weylin - the nonselective Healing works just fine as a limitation. If you're going to call out for the beneficence of Divine Holy Healing Power in such an uncontrolled way (i.e. not a spell), it's going to hit everybody in range.

Also - compare with Mass Cure Light Wounds - at 9th level, Turn healing is already more powerful (5d6 =~ 17.5 vs 1d8+9 =~ 13.5), but the spell gives you control over the targets. Makes lots more sense.

I do have some issues with the Rebuke/Harming end, as many people have eloquently described the problems with. But while I agree with all those, I think it just goes along with the already extant issue of spontaneously inflicting wounds, instead of curing. It doesn't create a new problem, and require a resolution.

Actually, I would point out that it makes evil clerics less powerful than the good ones. An evil cleric who works with anything other than undead is hosed, and that happens a lot more often than good clerics that work with the undead, especially if the creators of 3.P are going with the "necromancy is made of evil" notion. I don't like the idea of evil clerics being a burden to their parties, especially since they become more burdensome the higher their level rather than less.

On the flip side, yes, I see your point, and it's a damn fine one, and I'm really close to being convinced by it. However, this issue still bothers me to much to let it go.

I'm also going with a day of smurf avatars, just to see if I should keep them full time. I mean, I don't have an avatar otherwise, do I?

EDIT: That and sometimes they're just freaking too funny not to use.

The long and the short of it is the new Power Attack shafts the PCs who need it and grants extras to the monsters who don't. The new Combat Expertise boosts the PCs who don't need it and shafts the monsters (and PCs) who do. The old versions were actually well-written and did the jobs they needed to without doing jobs they didn't. Why are they being changed?

Hey, smurf! I've got an avatar! For once!

... totally belong in fantasy.

How about in D&D? They featured in an appendix in 1st ed (and I don't want to hear complaints about how it was "poorly written" and "bad design" - you're describing all of 1st ed when you say that). There were monsters in the 2nd ed monster manual with psionics (there are monsters in 3.5 core with psionics as well - as has been said before, illithid, gith-fillintheblank-i, etc.). It's never had a great deal of representation, but it's always been represented.

The problem with the poor representation is that incorporating it into the game made it difficult and required poor design choices for the DM. Returning it to a single appendix with partial representation (a Feat to allow for 2 power points and a 1st level power, can only be taken at level 1) will allow for the whole system to be integrated into core in such a way that it can also go largely unused (still have the monsters, but then again you've always had the monsters and never complained yet). The page count will be maybe twenty or thirty total - I've tallied.

In short, you'll never not have psionics in your game unless you plan to do without some majorly iconic D&D monsters.

Think of it in this light: there are three types of saves and different spells target different ones. The fighter has a weak WILL save, so hit him with spell A, the Wizard has poor FORT, hit him with spell B, etc. In this case, you'd preferentially select a type of weapon based on the damage type dealt (and whether or not it would defeat the target's armour).

Plus, all of the complexity would be "behind the scenes"; you do not have to re-calculate all of this during play. You figure the numbers out once and write them down, and don't worry about them again until your character changes armour.

Multiple problems. First, there are already three AC scores (normal, flat, and touch). Adding additional AC scores against additional damage types adds three different ACs apiece. Even if you want to say that touch AC is unaffected, flat AC would be affected, so two. Thus, just to use bashing, piercing, and slashing ACs, this would create a minimum total of 7 AC scores for anybody wearing armor.

Secondly, the complexity would be in real-time, just like anything else in the game. Mage armor, protection from missiles, shield, etc., would all have to modify the various armor types, and many of these would modify them unevenly.

Simply put, as the OP said, it's a "bang-for-buck" issue, but with the added problem that the simplified armor defense system of D&D doesn't scale well when trying to incorporate the complexities of armor dynamics - the system was, by design, made to brush-stroke all of these factors (hence why armor makes it harder to hit you rather than harder to injure you).

Asgetrion wrote:

I'd ha[t]e to see all characters of all the classes being able to make them via skills.

Under my proposal (Version III), the Feats aren't going anywhere. Skills are simply an additional way to make items (using the magic inherent in the rare and mysterious "components")

I dislike this greatly. Firstly, you can't do it without the Craft skills anyway (to produce the base item). Secondly, commoners should not make magic items.

Period instruments from middle age were easy to learn & to play, they did not support the kind of complexity expected from modern symphonic orchestral music.

Spend four weeks with a fiddle then repeat that statement. Or a lyre. Or a mandolin. Or a flute, even. Certainly a bagpipe.

Also, is a bagpipe folk or academic? It's a folk instrument, and commonly learned and played by the folk of the islands.

A Good Deity that Rebukes is already coloring outside the the typical lines as it were, even in 3.5 which makes the same assumption about Good and Evil clerics.

On the contrary. In the PHB it lists at least one deity that specifically grants rebuke even to good Clerics. I don't remember the naem off hand.

The general collective opinion from the "ditch skill points" camp is that it's easier to use the SAGA system. I agree, it is easier. NWPs were also easy back in 2nd ed. The problem is, easier does not always mean better - it's a worse system. It blocks choices to players, it kills backwards compatibility, and it returns to systems that players argued out of the system to begin with.

And Black Mages that use bards as spell components.

You're thinking of paladins. They're the material component for slay paladin's mount.

Also, for the record, I do think Diplomacy (as per the PHB) is problematic, unless the DM rules that some NPCs simply will not do some things no matter what. A sufficiently min/maxed character could talk Sauron into redemption (provided you survive the minute it takes to make your Diplomacy check).

Of course, no rule is safe from really maxing out on the ability...

Actually, the control on this one is already written in - it doesn't work if the target won't listen. They might not even listen if they're helpful. Great example in-game:

"Kobolds have killed (level 12 Paladin)! You have to call for help!"
"No, silly. There's no possible way for a Kobold to do that, you're just confused. (Casts calm emotions and a couple other spells that make it impossible for the character to believe the Paladin is dead). There, see?"

But that's the point with elves. Especially with the sub-types, the Elven race is blurred.

I mean, common. Wood Elves with +2 Strength?! No way.

Comes from the literature. In the novels, Legolas wasn't a flimsy, prissy stick figure. He was broad-shouldered with a head of black hair and was rugged and powerfully built. Although he wasn't a wood elf, he is taken as the definitive wood elf (and other wood elves were similar). Elves in general weren't small, frail, or weak in Tolkein. Quite the opposite.

johns wrote:

For that matter, I like the idea of only being able to use X number of magic items, negating the need for magic item slots.

I think the concern over slots might also be to ensure the rules cover an inability to wear 3 different magical diadems. :)

Third eye aware, fourth eye dominate, and fifth eye negate? Do what now?! Back before the chakra rule I actually had a player try that.

Most players I know has played a half-orc or a full blood orc at some point. Everyone has killed orcs. Sometimes hundreds or thousands of them over the years. A race loses any mythic element it might have had once you've done that sort of thing.

Merry and Pippin each killed dozens of Orcs in Tolkien, and they were Hobbits. Aragorn killed more than can be counted. I'm not sure what slaughtering them by the thousands does to dilute their nature as brutal creatures of savage culture who have no love of anything but themselves, and even then not by much.

As for playing a half-orc or a full orc, half-orcs were in Tolkein as agents of Saruman, and this didn't do anything to dilute the "Tolkeinesque" feel of the story (by definition). Nor did it dilute the Orc as brutal nightmares.

Just because it's possible for a vicious killing machine to kill only bad guys doesn't make them any less a vicious killing machine (which is why I think Orcish Paladins are occasionally fun to play). Rape and murder go hand-in-hand with war, especially in war-based cultures - or else are the history books about Mongols, Norse, Huns, Romans, Greeks, etc., all wrong?

Why don't they have Darkvision? Couldn't Darkvision replace Keen Senses?

Also, I sit the fence on the -2 Strength, but the two stat penalties might be a bit rough.

I would have to second some mechanism for limiting the effective targets of turning. There are good clerics who rebuke (I forget the core Greyhawk deity, but there is a good deity who grants rebuking), and there are always Sun Clerics of Athas who never, ever rebuke, despite the fact that the Sun is an evil element.

The problem with this is that rebuke effects would excessively clash with good gods of death. A good cleric will end up never using the power since every plant, animal, and living thing in the area would be affected by it. While evil turns aren't so bad, the good rebukes are basically wastes of class abilities.

It says Evoker. So my suggestion would be 7 core bound items, one resembling each school with none for universal (or maybe an 8th).

I would point out that there are actually eight schools of magic, but of course Divination hardly counts because the folks at Wizards of the Coast have no creativity for spells that don't make things explode. I should write up my total perspective vortex spell and see how people like divination after that.

Dmg Types:

1. bludgeoning, piercing and slashing
- Um, I only remember about once or twice in my playing of 3rd ed. D&D where this matters. It's either skeletons, zombies, or underwater. All are low-level concerns that are completely bypassed later on.
- These only encourge the 'golf-bag of weapons' syndrome, which imo is something I do not like.

2. Anxiomatic / Chaos
- Same as above, little use, unneccessary complication. There is a lot of emphasis on Good/Evil, but so few Chaos/Law that I think they can go without much crying.

3. Sonic
- How does sonic deal dmg? By dealing dmg to eardrums (which should be a DC to avoid deafening effect) and perhaps 'wind' of the sound? (which then can be listed under Physical/Force).

1. Addressed earlier, but a lot of plant creatures, higher-level undead, etc., are susceptible only to certain weapon types.

2. Somebody's never read Elric, or played a Holy Liberator.

3. Concussion grenades? Sonic weaponry? It's called "sonic/concussion" damage for a reason, and yes - sound can kill you. I've studied accoustics, I know this for a fact.

Epic Meepo wrote:

I like this idea. Though I'd call the replacement spell bleed out and I'd have it automatically kill the target. (You can already coup de grace a downed creature with a dagger, so a 0-level spell that does essentially the same thing wouldn't be that unbalancing.)

This is true, but a coup de grace is a full round action. This would be a standard.

It also renders valueless spells like death knell, which are higher level.

Here's me take on where things are divided...

I disagree with nearly every entry you have. I will give one example, since I don't want to spam the thread: How is luck a trained ability? Halfling or no, how do you train yourself to be luckier?

The problem is, every one of these is different in different settings. In Dark Sun, stonecunning was a cultural feature (that Athasian Dwarves don't possess). In Forgotten Realms, a Dwarf raised by jackals would retain stonecunning. You can't just artificially split apart the traits like that in the core rules - you're infringing far too much on campaign settings based on those rules.

I only say 'no' if it matters, and if someone in my Greyhawk-set Freeport game wanted to play a Grugach or a 'Valley Gnome' from the Vale of the Mage, I'd be fine with that. I don't mind elves and dwarves and gnomes having as much variety as humans.

I disagree with you as well, on virtually everything said in this paragraph. The philosophy of "only say no when it matters" is the path of letting game-breakers and setting-wrong things into the game.

Elves and dwarves can't have as much variety as humans. One of the coolness characteristics of the humans is variety - if elves and dwarves had the same variety, you'd go back to the 2nd ed "why would I ever play a human" phenomenon - there's simply no reason to.

EDIT: To clarify, my preferred philosophy is, "Only say yes if it fits."

Actually, as an alternative replacement for healing, why not give them the ability to transfer hit points from themselves to others? Just as a touch and a standard action, give them the ability to pass as many hit points as they possess (or less than that, if they wish) to whomever they are touching. It allows them to smite undead, heal living, and not really infringe on Clerics. It's also a single ability, and a good back-up for situations (as an example) where the Cleric is down.

"I heal the Cleric for 20 points. And I sure hope to god the cleric makes it to his next action."

5. hazel nuts taste good, and so does salami with bread wrapped around it (this doesn't have anything to do with this, but guess what I'm snacking on)

Bread wrapped in salami tastes really good, too. Just as an FYI.

It is my current plan to remove XP costs from the game entirely. This means that there are some aspects, such as magic item creation, that will need some rebalancing. XP is not a commodity that should be spent. It makes little "in game" sense, and forces some characters to spend their advancement just to use some of their class abilities.

Just an FYI.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'm with you, somewhat. I hate level loss and XP reduction, but I think converting it to an "XP debt" system would work out nicely. You still are paying a cost, but it doesn't hit your character's current build (so you don't have to scratch traits off the character sheet).

To clarify my opinion on possible player-DM conflict: My meaning was not that bad blood is created over the DM's interpretation of social interaction, but over the DM actively negating an specific, existing ability that the player might have chosen the race for. And one that is meant to be balanced against other races (i.e. the elves get this ability instead of another one which the DM does not negate). If this ability did not exist in the first place, I don't think there would be any bad blood about what the DM decides happens in a social encounter - at least, none that the system can do anything about as you say.

This actually has a clear statistical effect - anybody who would otherise be Neutral or better on first impression is pushed one step upwards, to a maximum of Helpful. This seems fairly clear.

The dwarf/elf (or any race/elf) animosity is encapulated in this - they don't start neutral, they start Hostile.

The issue that you're pointing out is a DM simply "god-modding" social situations, rather than using the rules as put. The rules as put are neither cumbersome nor broken, so a DM ignoring them is doing so purely for one of two reasons:

1) Doesn't want rules for roleplay, in which case the Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Sense Motive skills are rendered useless as well, and to a lesser extent Bluff, Intimidate, and the Bard class.

2) Doesn't want to RP "fluff", rather just wanting to agress foreign peoples, kill them when they defend their homes, and steal their stuff, in which case it's the same as 1 but for very different reasons.

Personally, I like the idea of elves following close to the golden ratios for facial and body proportions. It follows the Tolkein heritage for the Elves, since the Elves in modern fantasy come from Tolkien and nowhere else (they're nothing like the Sidhe or the Alfar aside from being magical and humanoid).

Addressing the OP, there is a simpler solution - add an "armorless" armor specialty to the Fighter list. This allows them to get some kind of bonus when they're simply not wearing armor, similar or identical to their armor specialties.

Thraxus wrote:

The weakness of a monk is the lack of ability to bypass and DR other than magic, admantine, and lawful. Against most devils, a monk will hit DR everytime. The d8 hitpoints can also be a problem for a melee class.

Oh god, so he has a weakness! Yeah, it is unfair indeed, how monstrous of them to design the monk with such a flaw! So let´s give them d10 HD and the ability to bypass everything.. that should solve it.

No, really, EVERY class has its weaknesses, and I dare say, the monk is the one with the least.

One to thing is to like the class and want to play a nice monk character; other thing is to want it without a bit of flaws so that it shines like a god amongst all other.
I've committed such a mistake before in Wizards of the Coast Forums about 4th ed back when we didnt have all this information. They had already said they would hold back the wizard firepower, make him more versatile, use spells more often but put him about side by side on the damaging scale with other classes. I argued this was wrong, that the wizard should be more powerful with his spells, that they studied for so long, fought so hard to get there, had to live through all those meek first levels, etc... But I've missed the point of "fairness", they were designing the classes to be balanced, so that no one would shine more than the others. And, THAT, was the important thing, it would help everybody have more fun.

So, I say it again; in a "mechanical" point of view, reading the rules and playtesting it, seeing it in play; has showed me the monk is already buffed up enough. It has many strong points that far make it up for its weakness (which every class should have).

Please, all I say here (or type.. ) is within my point of view, from my experiences with the game, I am not stating I am right... I am sure others had different experiences that could lead them think the monk is somehow "weak".. and.. I would like to see how they came to it.

Nah, man. My wizard should be able to wield his quarterstaff every bit as good as that monk or fighter. ;-p

...based on the build I said above...

That's what I'm saying. The build is bad, not the class. It's great on fighters, bad on monks. Indeed, the monk class is overpowered. Anybody can say "if you put the wrong feats on a class and give them the wrong equipment and the wrong skills, they suck". Compare them optimized, and the monk is death in any direction.

I dont think Heal should actually restore hit points. The skill could be renamed as First Aid, that would also solve the confusion with the spell Heal.

Agreed. If I can take a Skill to have a Fast Healing ability, then why would I ever have a Fast Healing ability? Cure light wounds is now nearly useless after level 2 or 3.

I also would like to underscore my dislike of Heal being based on Wis. When a chimpanzee can diagnose, perscribe seurum for, and treat pneumatic plage (my personal favorite of the plagues ^^ ), then I'll buy it.

I can accept Survival being based on Wis - despite the fact that it's a knowledge-type skill, it's something that a critter can do, so it should be based on an attribute a critter isn't stuck at 1 or 2 in.

(BTW, I love Half-orcs!)

Half-orcs are fun. The Dragonlance half-Ogres were a blast. One of my faves is the Thri-Kreen (love your img, btw - =-D ).

Just take a look at True20 (I know "enemy"-company) but they just made it not a Level Adjustment but a "Level Lag" which means its just a recomended number of levels the specific race should be "in behind" of the other characters to be of the same power level.

No unnerving mangling with the XP table anymore.
(We all know it was a pain in the ass!)

I disagree about the table, but the original EL/PL XP table is not OGC, so it doesn't much matter. I would point out that the "level lag" mechanic only works because True20 has no XP system whatsoever - level progresses by GM fiat. Thus, any character could end up with a level lag, again on GM fiat.

How about 3ð? Just a thought.

*Edit* I still think it's an april fool's joke.

I'm fairly certain you're right, however I need to look back again to see if the language about half-Elves is just as strong. If it is, then I do think it should be toned down.

I do call to mind one game where I was playing a Paka ranger (Evil race of cat-people from Ravenloft, noted for being active in the interests of other monstrous species) when he met a half-Orc and took great pity on him for being the product of the "shame and dishonor inflicted on Orcs by Humans". The half-Orc was very confused.

Starting to see the problem?

No. I'm not.

Improved trip. Stunning fist. Axiomatic strike. Improved grapple. The Monk can easily reduce the difficulties with striking a foe, and is almost always built in a way to maximize this potential. With four attacks per round, improved trip made them the gods of combat. Throw in some grappling and there wasn't a foe that could stand against them (literally).

Our friend the CR 13 monster against whom the Monk has to roll an ungodly 12 to hit normally on the first two attacks will quickly be prone and probably stunned. More than likely, he'll never get back up again. If there's a problem with that, bear this in mind - gauntlets and brass knuckles are weapons, and can be enchanted as such, and still apply to the Monk's unarmed attack abilities.

It's like a lesser death knell. It has my mark of groovy on it. Plus inflict does generally need to disappear.