Threeshades's page

Threeshades wrote:

as far as i remember there were like 4 copyrighted monsters in the Monster Manual I (not counting variations of each).

There are a lot more then that.

In the core set?

As for that one i only know Mindflayers, Beholders and Yuan-Ti are copyrighted (or at least copyrighted hard enough so no one else is allowed to use them) That's even just three. I cant think of anything else(maybe a few demons?).

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Right now, I am pretty firm on the Gnomes +2 to Cha and Con. The bonus to Cha was done specifically to match up with their fey background and obsessive nature. I think the trouble might be in the Halfling's +2 to Cha, but changing that to Int (Wis just does not fit) makes them too much like elves. This is a discussion we have had around the office more than once.

Welcome back, Jason! Hope everything went well. :)

I love the new gnome - their fluff really makes me want to play one! A gnome Paladin, while a little difficult given their low damage, would be so fun to roleplay!

I honestly never thought of Halflings with an Int bonus being too much like Elves. Maybe because the size difference is overwhelming in my internal image of the different races? I prefer halflings having a bonus to intelligence, myself...but then I love playing high intelligence rogues and bards.

High-Int rogues are just lovely. Bards dont necessarily need it, as they make more use of charisma, but still its nice to have tons of skills and be kind of witty too (as for the role-playing aspect).

About the gnome paladin: I dont think the low strength and small weapon damage are that bad, since the gnome makes up for it with better AC and Attack Bonuses and some extra hitpoints. (hitoints are something i simply cannot manage to get enough of when im trying to build a paladin, because i need all of the precious points/good rolls for cha, wis and strength)

Interesting discussion everybody.

Right now, I am pretty firm on the Gnomes +2 to Cha and Con. The bonus to Cha was done specifically to match up with their fey background and obsessive nature. I think the trouble might be in the Halfling's +2 to Cha, but changing that to Int (Wis just does not fit) makes them too much like elves. This is a discussion we have had around the office more than once.

Keep the debate going however, as nothing is set in stone quite yet.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Couldnt you give elves Wisdom instead? I mean, okay that doesn't fit wizards, but gives them some of their natural bond too, and helps them rangering.

Yeah probably still not a good idea since they've always been passionate wizards (at least since 3rd editon).

On the other hand gnomes are about as similar to halflings as dwarves are to half-orcs (okay in the latter case the negative attributes are different)
I think they have enough difference between each other, especially considering their other racial features.

Personally I am rather fond of having variety of races, and it was kind of sad that in 3.5 Monster Manual there were PC stats for orcs and goblins but they were so clearly weaker (to compare, in GURPS the goblins out of Fantasy Folk were rather common NPCs and occasional PCs too).

Just like I want to use more dwarves and gnomes, I would like to see goblinoids in other roles than burn-kill-pillage-adversaries (and lizardmen and fey and various other critters). They are not and should not be always compatible, but, hey, that just adds storytelling possibilities!

Orcs can be female too. They're only male in the Lord of The Rings movies. I, personally, don't like half-races. They shouldn't be so darn commen either. How many elves and humans get it on? They should be rare. Half-orcs are human. Half-elves are human. That's kinda my opinion. I don't think TSR nor Wizards ever wanted Orcs as PCs. They're great villians. I'd rather have Orcs over Half-orcs. I think alot of folks would like Drow too. A beuatiful yet utterly sinister race. Almost every game I play or dm has a drow pc. And two of us have had cool Orc pcs. I just don't like the whole 'every pc race has to resemble humans thing'. Give me Orcs or Hobgoblins! Gnolls or Lupin! Drow! Tieflings and Aasimars, or whatever they're called now! Catpeople or Nezumi (ratpeople), lizardmen or Saurians (no dragonborn- because dragons should be rare and awesome. And dragonmen are for Dragonlance (draconians)!

Just my nickels worth.

Orc, Gnoll and Hobgoblin's the way to go! Down to the "human-elf-dwarf" kingdom!!!

...

...

...

FOR THE HORDE!!! (???)

So I'm not the only one here who prefers races that are actually different from humans (i mean come on, gnomes and halfings are just small humans, dwarves are just short and stocky humans and elves are nothing but tall humans with bunny ears, about half-orcs and elves the core books even admit that they are mostly human)

I like to have things that look extrodinary, animal-people (cats, rats, wolves, foxes, bears, lizards, birds... you name it), creatures with extraordinary colorings (genasi, tiefling, aasimar, and other planetouched just as an example), or even races that look like nothing you'd have ever seen on earth (mudokons?)
Well the point is, all these near humans are just really uninteresting, I see humans every day, so in my games i'd rather like to see something different.

Threeshades wrote:

So while were talking about the final release.

Will there be monsters in it too, or an updated Monster book released along with it?
And what about the "DMG-part"? I mean the part of the book that was in the DM Guide in 3.X so far. Will it remain in the same book as the for-players part or will it get its own book?

If the DM and player sections stay in one book it will definately be more than worth the $49.99. (though it might be impractical while playing when both DM and players need to look inside)

I hope the DMG part stays in. most of it is useful to players as well so everyone is advised to have both really in my opinion. nearly all my players have both PHB and DMG. As far as monsters, i believe Paizo has plans to release a bestiary book a month after the the final release if i recall correctly. will have "normal" fantasy monsters and the wonderful paizo creations to date, won't have the ones that are copywright by WOTC of course, but that still leaves a LOT open. After their classic monsters revisited i'm very eager to see what they do with a bestiary

as far as i remember there were like 4 copyrighted monsters in the Monster Manual I (not counting variations of each).

So while were talking about the final release.

Will there be monsters in it too, or an updated Monster book released along with it?
And what about the "DMG-part"? I mean the part of the book that was in the DM Guide in 3.X so far. Will it remain in the same book as the for-players part or will it get its own book?

If the DM and player sections stay in one book it will definately be more than worth the $49.99. (though it might be impractical while playing when both DM and players need to look inside)

You'd also have to go over the spell lists for any variant Paladins.

That's true, but you could actually just change the paladin spell list so that it says Bless/Bane, Bless/Curse Water, Cure/Inflict wounds, and then have it in the paladin class section explained, which paladin recieves which of the two spells.

There are two ways around this:
The AD&D way was to have the Assassin as a core class. In every way, the assassin was a true polar opposite of the paladin. He wasn't a fighter fiercely standing in the forefront of battle against the valorous champion--he was a murderer in the shadows, evil and duplicitous. Godly v. godless; honor-bound v. duplicitous; steadfast v. skulking. I had a blast playing an assassin in an evil-aligned party for three years. I know that most folks think of the blackguard as the paladin's opposite but I personally like having more contrast...

That is also a good solution I think. This way evil parties don't have the same class but at least something that good ones dont posess.

This is actually a suggestions but it didnt seem to fit in the other forums since its neither abilities and races nor playtesting. If its wrong please move it.

On topic:

Something that bugged me ever since I first played DnD (started with 3.0) is that Paladins are absolutely unusable in evil themed parties, without using non-core material.
Every hero can have his evil opposite. The valorous fighter, and the heroic barbarian can as well be bloodthirsty slaughterers, the cunning but good-hearted rogue might as well be a backstabbing (literally) murderer and thief. the great wizards and sorcerers of light can be evil necromancers and fireball flinging destroyers. the enlightened healer and priest of the god of the sun can also be an evil undead controlling priest of death and decay. The druid bringing nature and humanoids to live in harmony with each other could also be summoning beasts to bring destruction about humans. The nature loving ranger could also be a murderous ambusher. The bard traveling from one place to another collecting great tales to tell the people and inspire them could also be a mischievous evildoer travelling only to bring despair to the people.
But the paladin? The paladin is only the paladin. And the only way to become something else is by a prestige class. The black guard is all nice and good, but it is near impossible to go with that option if you start in an evil party at level 1.

So I think it should be incorporated in the core rules that Paladins should also be able to start with parties that are not good aligned.
Why should evil parties be limited in their choice of classes?

as for mechanically, i thought it could work in a similar fashion as a cleric channeling either positive or negative energy.
So the alignment restrictions will be expanded to LG or LE (or maybe CE instead)
The evil aligned paladin will then have the opposite powers of the good aligned one (aura of evil, detect good and smite good instead of aura of good, detect evil and smite evil)
Basically the evil opposite will look like the Unearthed Arcana variant evil paladins.

So yeah, I would love to see at least one evil option for the paladin in the core material, so that class isnt so limitedly accessible anymore.

Threeshades wrote:

Scotto wrote:

In my home games, I look at it this way:

Orcs are only male. A problem with the species, to say the least. In order to survive, the race must procreate with other races, usually violently. On the plus side, they are able to breed true with a variety of other races.

Half orcs are the "runts" of this breeding system. They are the rare offspring that don't breed true, yet are still viable. You could create variants such as "half orc, half goblin", or virtually any other race you like.

This gives orcs a specific need to be aggressive and violent, conquering lands and taking women. PG-13 or R rating, for sure, but this is how my group likes it. Orcs are not nice, and they provide a lot of reason for PCs to go out and "rescue the princess". It's also a good way to have orcs that don't kill everything in their path. Using the default orcs, they would have little concern with taking prisoners, and would simply kill everyone. Fantasy RPGs are more fun (IMO) when the bad guys take prisoners to be rescued by heroes.

-Scott

A race that relies entirely on rape to ensure their very existence? That surely isn't a concept to made published without political consequences ;) But for private games it might just work.

The Amazons though are ok >.> guess that rule only applies to males doing the raping.

Exactly.

Maybe men just dont mind that much being forced to have sex.

Threeshades wrote:

Also I love that new look illustrated with the Gnome Druid in the Classes section.

That's a gnome? Whoa factor... Anyway, it was my favorite illustration in the book even when I had no idea what it was. Kudos to the artist!

The artist is Wayne Reynolds, I recognize his pictures between thousands and i'm constantly covering him in Kudos for his amazing stuff.

What did you think it was? Couldnt be a halfling, since in the Pathfinder pdf those appear to have the cliched naked hairy feet. The Bard is a halfling too also painted by Reynolds and its got the hairy feet. So this must be a gnome. The taller races cant be it unless her animal companion is a dire leopard ;)

Maybe gnomes could be split into different kinds, just like there were different elf races already in 3.5, mainly prevalent in Fogotten Realms though (Moon/Silver, Sun/Gold, Wood/Bronze, Wild/Green and Drow/Dark elves). Those were covering pretty much every shade from a totally feral, natural race up to a highly civilized one.

There could be natural gnomes as well as the illusionist gnomes and maybe even the mechanic gnomes.

In my home games, I look at it this way:

Orcs are only male. A problem with the species, to say the least. In order to survive, the race must procreate with other races, usually violently. On the plus side, they are able to breed true with a variety of other races.

Half orcs are the "runts" of this breeding system. They are the rare offspring that don't breed true, yet are still viable. You could create variants such as "half orc, half goblin", or virtually any other race you like.

This gives orcs a specific need to be aggressive and violent, conquering lands and taking women. PG-13 or R rating, for sure, but this is how my group likes it. Orcs are not nice, and they provide a lot of reason for PCs to go out and "rescue the princess". It's also a good way to have orcs that don't kill everything in their path. Using the default orcs, they would have little concern with taking prisoners, and would simply kill everyone. Fantasy RPGs are more fun (IMO) when the bad guys take prisoners to be rescued by heroes.

-Scott

A race that relies entirely on rape to ensure their very existence? That surely isn't a concept to made published without political consequences ;) But for private games it might just work.

Threeshades wrote:

It's nice but you should eliminate the human blood rules then.

Well, saying Half-Orcs count as Orcs for any effect related to race is a very little change to me.

One of my PC started an Half-Orc druid yesterday evening. And the vision of the half-orc I brought to my group seems to be accepted by everyone.

Orc blood(or Human blood) rule is a detail to me.

it is pretty much. The only thing that it changes is that they are not affected by human bane and favored enemy - humanoid: human anymore. Otherwise there are little things that are affecting or requiring being human particularly. It might even help the balance as the half-orc race still is going slightly behind the other races on power levels. While they yet are much closer than before.

Okay there are intelligent invertebrates, but they are pretty much a minority, considering "vermin" mostly includes insects.
If you go beyond the invertebrates that are classified as 2vermin" in DnD you actually get extremely intelligent creatures like octopods.
Butthe rules mostly refer to vermin that is instinct guided rather than reasoning.

Not too long ago I posited the idea that half-orcs *were* orcs, just ones that had become more civilized through interaction with humankind.

I was thinking of the Germanic barbarian tribes the Romans used to fight other Germanic tribes. In this case, though, I was seeing some human empire using orcs to fight other orcs. Over time, the orcs who interracted with the humans became more settled and civilized. Their stats altered to indicate a drift towards civilization and even their darkvision became weaker. They were still called half-orcs, though, by both sides of the fight. The still-savage orcs saw them as half-an-orc because they'd grown so soft, and the humans saw them as half-an-orc because they weren't as bad as the fully savage ones.

It's nice but you should eliminate the human blood rules then.

Skeletons, and especially golems, act like machines, nothing more. Their minds are basically computers with voice recognition software. They'll do exactly what you tell them to do, but they aren't capable of thought. Computers do not have an intelligence score. Thus, neither do skeletons.

And, this change still has nothing to do with playability.

Exactly my point. Furthermore they are opertated purely magically which gives them these sort of abilities.

An intelligence score of 1 is adressed to a lot of animals. But all of even these animals still have a lot more sense of abstraction and contextual thinking, than most if not all insects could ever dream of.
Lets go back in time a little bit. The first appearance of intelligence was with a tiny fish that was almost entirely featureless. This tiny little creature was compared even to fish today incredibly stupid. But it still had an incredible advantage towards most invertebrates (mainly insects, spider-likes and crustaceans), because those creatures had no intelligence whatsoever. They had and still have only their pure instinct dictating their reactions to diverse situations and they cannot react differently.
Have you ever had an insect inside your room that was constantly trying to fly through the window but it couldn`t because the window was closed? That is because the insect's instincts only tell it "if you can see nothing down that way, the way is clear", so the insect cant see the window and flies against it and it doesn't stop trying, because it cannot think as far as "wait, i didnt get through here the first time, so it probably isn't possible", but even the stupidest animal, even a totally idiotic, overbred dog will know after the first time bumping into the glass, that the way it tried to go is locked. And that is the difference between an Int score of 1 and no Int score at all.

EDIT: Un an unrelated note: Where have I heard the name hogarth before?

MAC III wrote:

I also experimented with gnomes who lacked SLAs and instead had the Scent extraordinary ability (hearkening back to the big-nosed gnomes of 2nd edition).

One could also hearken back to the gnome of 1st edition, which enjoyed twice the Hear Noise bonus awarded an elf (+10% vs +5%). It actually kind of bothered me to find Keen Senses defined for Gnomes exactly the same way it was defined for dwarves.

I like the +2 Charisma modifier. +2 Consitution fits the idea of gnomes living deep in the earth, but also works for your pointy-hat garden gnomes. However, the goggled gnome of the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign setting seems to fit more of a mad scientist or engineering role. Since the word "gnome" is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know", the desire to support the option for +2 Intelligence is hard to ignore.

The words origin is not clear. It might be simply derived from "gnome" which means "mind" or "understanding" opr "gnosis" which means "knowledge" but there's also the theory of it being derived from "geonomos" meaning "earthdweller".

But i dont think this is the right place to start a discussion about etymology. Neither would it take us very far.
The Paracelsus's gnome however was described as an earth or mountain spirit as he included it in his list of elementals.
Also in mythology and german folklore gnomes were creatures of earth with a bond to nature.

Threeshades wrote:

Back on the planetouched I think Genasi could even be improved, because they seemed rather behind Aasimar and Tieflings on their ability scores. + all of them having much less resistances and their 1'day spell like abilities being hardly any better, if not even worse than those of Aasimar and Tiefling.

Does anyone remember that one of the main purposes of the Pathfinder project was to improve the play viability of the core races which were losing out to exotics like the Genassi? It wasn't to put out a whole set of buffs for every possible player race.

Im not trying to place them back on top, but I think they are rather underpowered. At least to my experience.

(PS: I like exotics, the core races are just boring. I already have a real life for bein (near-)human)

Back on the planetouched I think Genasi could even be improved, because they seemed rather behind Aasimar and Tieflings on their ability scores. + all of them having much less resistances and their 1'day spell like abilities being hardly any better, if not even worse than those of Aasimar and Tiefling.

I'd suggest changing them as follows
Fire: an extra +2 Strength, to represent the potential for destruction in fire
Water: an extra +2 Dexterity to show the flexibility in water (which is almost unlimited)
Air and Earth: Remove the Wisdom penalty which i think has only been there to even out the fact that they had 2 ability bonuses.

That'd give us:
Fire: +2 Strength, +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma
Water: +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma
Air: +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma
Earth: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma

So you see it even gives them a pattern in relation, as every type has an ability bonus in common with 2 other types while none of them has a bonus in common with their opposite element (that is Earth vs Air and Water vs Fire)

Actually, that's the long history of 3.X non-human races having even numbers for their ability bonus. Humans never got an ability bonus in 3.X, so we're talking about something off the track in either case. Since I've always thought of the non-human races as having super-human abilities (take for example elven accuracy with a bow), a less extreme bonus actually makes a lot of sense for humans, in my opinion.

Zero is still an even number in some way. ;)

Also I don't know if you should see an elf's grace, a dwarf's hardyness or a half-orcs brute strength as something superhuman or rather something simply unusual for a human. I mean looking at humans some of them posess exceptional abilities. Some of them are incredibly smart, others are unusually strong (those enhanced with drugs are not meant), again others know how to use common sense, and then there are the ones that can convince masses of people of their ideas easily.

In regards to a Pathfinder RPG SRD I must say that while I wholeheartedly support it, I have also found that the PDF is a very good reference work, as they made a great job of bookmarking it thoroughly.

Maybe an SRD project could be started by several people, as bringing that whole book into a website format is a lot of work for one person.

About the translation: That's perfect, I was hoping I can get a book which I can give to my DM and players without them asking every third word from me.
Though I hope the translation will match the DnD book translations. I'd hate a totally inconsequential translation of the rules. that would just make them harder to work with when trying to get 3.5 material into your game.

Agreed. For another example, Use Rope saw extensive use in every campaign I was ever in, but is being eliminated (not even merged), while Sleight of Hand, which has never been used once, is being kept....

The skill rearrangements are frankly sloppy. From a role-playing or immersive point of view, merging Swim with anything is just wrong (some people know how to swim, others don't....) -- it's like merging Fly. Likewise, Climb can't be reasonably merged with anything else. Jump could probably be eliminated or replaced with a feat, because in reality the difference between people's jumping distances is remarkably small (compared to their climbing abilities), and it's more a matter of athletic practice than 'learning how to jump'. I use Concentration even without spellcasters to determine whether people are able to pay attention when distracted -- it should give a synergy bonus to Perception checks made to notice things in distracting situations.

You are speaking purely out of personal experience. I for one had seen use of sleight of hand in almost every campaign that included a rogue.

About the jumping not being 'learning how to jump'. Not but ranks don't necessarily have to mean that you have learned how to do it, it can also mean that you just have a lot of practice in it.

However i like those thoughts on concentration.

Threeshades wrote:

though these are not really on par with the current races rules. Maybe you should turn the orc stats from -2 Wis to +2 Wis and take over the half-orcs features (except that they dont count as human of course). then the relations would be closer.

Sure they're on par with the rules. Reduce the ECL of all the monsters by 1 and you have a perfectly compatible monster as pc stat block. The core races were bumped to lower the other ECLs by 1.

The ECL monsters are on par alright, but what I'm thinking of is the orcs, who aren't at all. The 3.5 orcs were already underpowered in their own edition. Having no racial traits other than darkvision and light sensitivity (which is even an extra drawback) and a total ability modifier of -2. Now races got extra advantages and the normal total ability modifier has been raised from 0 to +2. That throws orcs back a lot more than they were thrown back already.

(a) Why not let equipment raise the score?
(b) Undead are immune to anything that requires a Fort save and doesn't affect objects (e.g. poisons). They're also immune to physical ability damage. That wouldn't change.

Because they are not supposed to be either tough or frail. They are nothing more than a walking body.

How come drow have all kinds of cool spider pets, then? And how come golems and skeletons aren't always walking into walls or off of cliffs? And how come they can follow instructions that a snake can't?

Drow pets: Selectively breeding spiders with a social instinct is the first thing that comes to mind. Other than that the whole thing doesnt make any sense anyway. Or we just go with the allexplaining "a wizard did it"

Avoiding walls and cliffs: Pre-programmed behaviour, much like instincts, probably even simpler though. And a snake cannot follow instructions because it does not need to. Snakes live mostly for themselves and ignore taming attempts mostly. Golems and mindless undead however have been made solely to follow instructions. You know, they're magical and all.

you could give constructs and undead a 10 con score alright, but you will have to explain anyway why and how these scores cannot be altered for PCs and for level advancing characters all about and why equipment, magic poisons and stuff cannot raise or lower that score. Also you'll still have to explain that they are immune to most effects requiring or forcing a fortitude check.

About the intelligence: These creatures simply do not posess intelligence. They are purely driven by instinct and/or an order from their master. Vermin do only what they have in their "genetic programming" and cannot react accordingly to a situation that their predecessors havent been encountering before. as for golems, zombies and skeletons, they are simply moving bodies with no workable thinking faculties at all. An Intelligence score, especially one above 1, would tell something completely different about them. Having an intelligence score means being able to ackknowledge contexts and to learn in at least a strongly limited range, which zombies, skeletons, golems and vermin simply can't.

The problem is as long as they have a fly speed, you will have a hard time getting rid of level adjustment. My first thought is to reduce flying to gliding for the first few levels at least. Much like the raptorans.

I disagree about disguise and escape artist being removed. These skills might find little pracitcal use in most campaigns, but if you dont need them just dont take them. But I personally think these skills make for a nice campaign with some depth to it. If you'd erase these skills I think the game would go too much toward 4th edition/video games, where you have skills only directly applicable to dungeon crawling.

But I think for a nice role playing feeling it is necessary that characters have the option for more skills they can use outside a dungeon or in situations they do not encounter on a regular basis.

I think having Bluff, Sense motive and Diplomacy on different skills does make a lot of sense and shouldnt be changed, as all of these are different in their core. A good liar doesn't necessarily have an easy time to recognize his kind. And diplomacy has little to do with deception. If diplomacy meant deception in any way, would people invite diplomats to their country for intetnational communication? Diplomacy is something entirely different it is about bein persuasive, getting someone else to listen to reason or at least what sounds reasonable. Bluff is to simply make them believe something that is not true and thus making them do what you want to.

Also while spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) could actually go together, use magic device again is something inherently different. Knowledge (arcana) and spellcraft are both about the character's knowledge and aptitude in the subject of the arcane. But use magic device is not at all. Use magic device is the talent to decieve the magic item by acting like you had any idea of what youre doing, but you actually dont. Or by pretending to be something youre not (may it be another class or an entirely different race) it should get a synergy bonus from spellcraft/know(arcana) at best. And if you want to fold it away, fold it into bluff. And then only make it available to be used that way if you have ranks in spellcraft/know(arcana)

Threeshades wrote:

I see, then I simply misinterpreted the meaning of it. Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that it includes the rules being freely available to anyone (hence the DnD online SRDs).

Thanks for clearing that up.

If you would like to create an online version of the final rules, I am sure *many* folks would flock to it. Just be sure that it is compliant with the OGL, and does not mention Pathfinder, Paizo or an of their IP (or is that PI).

-- david
Papa.DRB

if that would be legal it would sure be an awesome thing to do. Though i dont posess enough skill necessary even for something as simple as making an SRD site. Also i don't have the condition to finish that.

I had just signed up today already gave my 2 cents to several threads though.

I've been playing DnD 3 for a while now. And since some time been following the Order of the Stick on Giantitp. Yesterday I found a post on the gitp boards theorizing wether the OotS will be updated to the pathfinder rules set, now that DnD4 is out.
A conveniently placed link to paizo in that very post led me to download the beta corebook and have a good look at it, to see how this theory could come up.

And well looking at it i decided that it is pretty much the best version of DnD rules ive seen so far, especially the class fixes had a very strong feeling of "new and shiny" to it. Like when you play a game on your computer for ages but it keeps going slow because your computer doesnt live up to the system requirements and then you update your hardware and suddenly the game runs smoothly at highest sound and graphics settings...

...yeah... ...anyone who knows that, might understand the kind of feeling I got from that book.
Also the fact that a whole lot of the book illustrations are done by Wayne Reynolds effectively kept my eyes fixed on it. Wayne Reynolds is one of my all time favorite fantasy artists!

So yeah, I came, I saw, I loved it. Or in other words: I came for general information on what kind of rules Pathfinder uses, but I'm staying for the awesome update it poses for DnD 3.

I remember reading plenty of stuff in Dragon where if CHA for a half orc trying to intimidate didn't make sense a DM could allow STR to be used instead. Dragon was/is considered "canon", correct?

It was simply a suggestion for DMs. A DM can houserule private games as much as they want.

However that very concept was officialized in 3.5, stating a character can make STR based intimidate checks but only against small numbers of characters, as a whole army would probably not even fear someone of the size of the Incredible Hulk (unless they know that he even has the power of the Hulk, which is highly unlikely)

simondeschenes wrote:

It would be really great to have a group of Orc and/or Ogre as PCs. It would be really interesting for Roleplay purpose too.

In the mean time you don't need Paizo to provide such rules for you. The 3.5 monster manual gives you the information you need to play an Orc and/or Ogre as a PC. :P

Always disappoint a Nymph doesn't have AS PC rules without breaking out the DMG. ;)

though these are not really on par with the current races rules. Maybe you should turn the orc stats from -2 Wis to +2 Wis and take over the half-orcs features (except that they dont count as human of course). then the relations would be closer.

After reading this post, I'm not sure what to do with gnomes. on the one hand keeping the +2 to charisma makes them too similar to halfling stat adjustments but changing it to intelligence may not fit with a sorcerous or fey-like heritage. Either option isn't quite perfect.

If you want to move them away from halflings I'd rather suggest giving halflings +2 Int instead of their charisma. Would help them at their rogueness too.

I think what has been done to the gnomes in pathfinder is pretty much the best interpretation of gnomes ive ever seen in a fantasy setting. Then again besides DnD, Warcraft and that German RPG thats english name i keep forgetting, i've not seen many gnomes in fantasy.

The gnomes in pathfinder are much closer to what they were supposed to be in mythology. Tiny nature spirit people. The bond to the fey for a change actually makes sense for them. I think it even makes more sense in regard of the gnomes' lifestyle in 3.X dnd. They live rather reclusively in touch with nature. And there i dont see it making a lot of sense to have academies for them to study illusionism.

Also I love that new look illustrated with the Gnome Druid in the Classes section.

@simondeschenes
You could at least give a few words on a reason for that motion.

i think in 3rd edition dnd they tried to emphasize the half-blood races', especially half-orcs, rarity by making them terribly underpowered and thus a rare player choice. ;)

No really, half-orcs are as said an integrate part of DnD and I, as many other layers would think it sad to remove them or replace them with orcs.

@Uruk-Hai reference
Pretty much like that except in DnD settings the "lowly" orcs usually tend to set themselves above the half-bloods.

The core rules are meant to steer players toward playing the more humanlike races

Yeah that part is a little saddening to me personally, because I think the less humanoid a race is, the better (humans and their variations, be those short and stocky or tall and long-eared, are pretty boring in my opinion). Which is why I can't wait for more material offering the possibility to play some more "creative" races.

But still the pathfinder system so far rocks!

Maybe because "caster level" was thought to be enough to get the hint. Also if you have multiple caster classes then you dont have one caster level anymore but several such. Then you for example have your sorcerer caster level and your wizard caster level. And as you have cast the spell as a wizard, that is the caster level you have to refer to.

Also: Some spells are available to more than one class. In these cases it would seem more useful to just say "per caster level" instead of "per level of wizard or sorcerer or cleric or bard level, whichever of these you cast the spell with"

As in DnD 3.5 I'm pretty sure it only refers to the level of the class that you have taken and/or cast this spell with.

OGL has nothing to do with the PDF being free currently. The PDF being free right now is due to the open beta that Paizo is conducting to improve the rules. Once the Open Beta is finished the final product will be available for a set price determined by Paizo, currently listed at 49.99 or so.

OGL or Open Gaming License is a legal document designed by Wizards of the Coast allowing game manufacturers to produce products that can be used with or are compatible to Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition. It does not make a product free unless the publisher chooses to make it free, which is what Paizo has done with the Beta Test version of Pathfinder.

I see, then I simply misinterpreted the meaning of it. Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that it includes the rules being freely available to anyone (hence the DnD online SRDs).

Thanks for clearing that up.

Like the Azlanti gets a +1 to Int and Wis,Chelaxians +1 to chr and +1 Int, Kellids +1 Str, +1Con. etc...

I dont see that making a lot of sense sorry.

Threeshades wrote:

So the final book won't be OGL anymore?

Then I'll have to ask about how big will the difference in price between pdf and print edition be.

Also, will there be translations to other languages?

As far as I know, the final edition will still be OGL. What gave you the impression that it wouldn't be?

The fact that people are asking for ways to get a free copy of the pdf. That leaves me no other conclusion than the game not being OGL anymore.

Do you think that splitting +2 stat to +1 and +1 and breaking down the humans into sub classes by region would help. Other systems do this IK for example.

I don't think that would work very well. +1 on 2 stats doesn't really make sense in my opinion. A +1 stat at all is kind of off the track, looking back at the long history of 3.X races having even numbers for their ability modifications.

Also how do you mean sub-classes?
I think if you want to make your human more specific to its home region, do it like it has been done in the FR campaign setting, use your bonus feat slot for a regional feat. This leaves you the choice to make your character more characteristic for their homeland or to build him like an more unusual person, someone who does not go with the customs of their nation.

Humans are still the strongest race, because of that bonus feat. Also, in many builds, like Rogues and Bards, or any skill-based non-Wizard build, that +1 skill point per level effectively is the same as +2 Int. So suddenly a human is +2 Anystat, +2 Int, with no stat penalties.

And then on top of that, they get not one, but two bonus feats? That's insanity! It's enough to make half-elves keep their spot as weakest race, that's for sure.

-Matt

I disagree. Even for non-wizards a +1 skillpoint/level is still not an effective +2 int. There are still skills using Int as asociated ability, but they don't get +1 also there might occur Intelligence checks for whatsoever (the group has been faced with several situations and an intelligence check might be telling the players that these situations are linked to each other, for example). Those won't be benefitting from the +1 skillpoint either.

But I have to agree that the Weapon Training is too specific for humans. Not every human in the world is training themselves with a specific weapon, even in the most barbaric or brutal environments. A whole extra bonus feat would be way overpowered of course (i mean beyond the one they already have)

I could imagine they could be allowed to ignore an ability prerequisite for one feat they take somewhere during their career. But I'm not sure about this either.

So the final book won't be OGL anymore?

Then I'll have to ask about how big will the difference in price between pdf and print edition be.

Also, will there be translations to other languages?

I think that concentration is more a mental skill than physical - it's a case of mind over body. However, there's also a place for being physically tough and begin better able to ignore the punnishment. I'd suggest adding a feat similar to intimidating prowress, that lets you add your Con modifier to your spellcraft checks to cast spells, either on the defensive or when taking damage or distrations. Maybe call it Body Over Mind. This would be a good idea for the final PRPG rules as well.

If you say that concentration is a mental skill, then you should at least see what ability it should be tied to then. It should actually be pretty much impossible to concentrate, if you don't have enough wisdom to even keep your attention on one single thing. So yes, wisdom is the ability you need to have to be able to concentrate, if any mental ability.

Maybe it would be advisable that casters get the feature to use their casting ability (Sorcerers, Bards: Charisma; Wizards: Intelligence; Druids, Clerics, Paladins and Rangers: Wisdom) for spellcraft checks rolled in order to concentrate. That would put them all on equal level, and I think it even makes sense, since that ability is the part of their mentality they have to focus on.