TommyJ's page

I prefer to roleplay without miniatures or battlemats. How difficult is it to houserule away miniature positioning without breaking the balance of the classes, combat or other rule subsystems?

Like others have said, the concept of minis is worked thoroughly into the rules, and from my perspective it is an integral part of 4E. Playing without them would be like... like playing 3.0-3.5 without dice (I am sure it can be done, I just don't want to be there while it is).

No amount of houseruling will fix this...

You could use something other than minis, if its the cost you worry about. But you will need a mat or something similar and some kind of gaming pieces.

Hope that helps.

I play and run 4e I also play 3.5/Pathfinder.
IMO 4e is much easier to put together adventures for and run 3.5/Pathfinder I like to play but not run because putting adventures together and running it is a pain.
When 4e first came out I thought it was kind of bland and all the characters felt the same but as I continued playing 4e I started noticing the nuances of each character build. Even though each character uses the same framework each build has a different play-style.
My only major complaint about 4e is the lack of fluff, There is barely enough background material to hang a short adventure on let alone an continuing campaign and power and monster description are almost non existent.
The majority of books for 4e are of high quality and very useful but continue to skim on fluff. The only 4e books I haven’t got are Draconomicon because I don't use Dragons in my games and Dungeon Delve because I don't want pre-made dungeon crawls. I would prefer pre-made dungeons/maps that I can stock with my own monsters, traps and plots.

There was a time when they would write ecology of the piercer, and I would yawn at the amount of nonsense info about a monster, when all I need to know was how to kill it :-) (just like Vasquez in Aliens).
But now I find that I could use just a weee bit more info about monsters. It is like there is a lot of assumed knowledge about where monsters are from, how they came about and what is their purpose.

I do not wish to be back the "ecology of the piercer" days, but a little more fluff would be nice.

Also the adventures are similarly short on info. Give us a little more plot and twists to work with!

But I love the rules...

I think the Beastmaster has a lot of potential.
Let's just forget for a moment how much or little damage it does...
It is an extra creature in combat, that does not earn (eat up) xp but that can flank and absorb damage. It moves for free when you move, so even if you don't ever attack with it, it works!

Perhaps I have missed it, I admit I have not read the rogue very closely, but where does it say you cannot use a longsword with your various powers?

It is specified in the powers.

A longsword is not a light blade.

What do people think of H3: Pyramid of Shadows?

I like the villain i PoS, and I may lift parts of the adventure for use elsewhere, but I will not be running it as is.

Must .... brag... about WRATH!

I tried to resist, I really did, but I can't help but mention Wrath of the River King. It is a 4E adventure with a rich set of NPCs (some of them recurring), several big skill challenges and roleplay encounters, a decent sandbox-style plot, plus a ton of new monsters.

I've been playtesting it since GenCon, and it is really coming together.

It will be a limited edition for patrons of Open Design. Check out the writeup.

You have a good track record in my book Mr. Baur, so I will be keeping an eye out for "Wrath of the River King". Will this be out a printed module or pdf only? And sticking to my original question - when? :-)

Thank you all for the feedback. Nice to know I am not the only one underwhelmed by the offerings so far.

I hope that Wizards are just looking for their "voice" as someone suggested. However I fear this is just the new (old) style. As seen in the quote in my OP.

A few suggest I check out 3PP, like Goodman games. Honestly I have found the quality of Goodman games scenarioes to be poor. They focused on old style dungeon crawls... and that is just what Wizards do now. Complete with Tomb of Horror style visual aids.

I will of course be checking out Goodmans first few adventures, but I do not have high hopes.

Since Paizo is not going 4E I am hoping someone else will show that you can make compelling stories, with rich background and cool villains with 4E.

I like 4E. But I also like good adventures with a strong theme, a cool backstory, exciting locations and memorable NPC's.

So I ask you. Is it just me, or are all the adventures put out by Wizards so far "less than they could have been" (up to and including Scepter Tower of Spellguard).

In another thread N'Wah paraphrased something from the latest Wizards podcast

PS: If you're planning on sending Dungeon/Dragon submissions to WotC, they apparently don't like long adventure backgrounds- something about "if the PCs will never find out, we don't care" or somesuch. Odd, but whatever. They babble about it for a bit. Honestly, I understand both ways, and as a DM, I love excessive background and often spill it to the PCs after the adventure when plied with drinks, but I can run a good adventure without it.

So far I have like Thunderspire Labyrinth the best, maybe for its potential for me to expand it...

But are we never gonna get any cool stories? I am a little dissappointed here. But what do the rest of you think?

Listen up guys, it's a cartoon!

They do not describe their customers as trolls - they make fun of trolls. You know, the internet kind! Of course in the cartoons universe this is a real troll (with computer skills no less).

They make fun of themselves! The big hoardy dragon, that just want's more treasure.

They make fun of the fanboys...

But it is all good-natured fun in my opinion. Especially since they dish it out to themselves as well.

In any case, I think you put way too much in it. I doubt that Wizards held a meeting, deciding it was time to show everyone what they thought about those that failed to embrace 4E. More likely a small team made this, the script I mean, and thought it was funny.

It not actually that funny, but that is all.

Wizards have all the area effect spells!
While the Warlock does more damage, he does so only to a single target.
Wizards on the other hand blast several targets at the same time, which make them highly useful against swarms (creature type) and minions.
Also, I agree with the earlier poster, that wizards can shape and control the battlefield.
Finally Wizards seem to be just a tad more flexible. With their cantrips, and ability to switch their daily and utility spells.
So overall I think they look good, and I would play one readily.

I doubt that "Castle running" will be featured greatly.

Although one should expect some high-level characters to be lords and rulers... the game system so far has made it very clear, that we are not gonna be doing anything in the area of game-economics.

So if you are thinking about running a castle/realm, taxing people, paying for troops etc. etc. I do not think we will see any of this (thank god).

WTF? This has absolutely nothing to do with the stupid non-sequitor arguments that get bandied around. This is a discussion about a product, a product which sucks ass, and let's not mince words or go tilting at windmills regarding the existence of stupid arguments regarding 4e. [snip]

This outline is a piece of garbage. [snip]

WotC should be ashamed of this... [snip] ...they are the market leader, and they are in a vulnerable position. If they're going to put their thumbs back up their asses and go back to releasing s*#@ like the original launch of eDragon/eDungeon or Keep on the Shadowfell, they're going to lose more customers, including me. [snip] Hell, they need to do better, Martial Power better...

I agree that the AP so far has been lackluster, and that the overview is weak, and that Wizards need to improve.

I just think we need to tell them that in a manner that... well... has a chance of being read, understood and taken to heart by Wizards. A lot of people are "raging", and this is not the best way to communicate.

So maybe we should get back to telling them what we would like, in a civilized manner, and hopefully they will listen. The fact that they posted this rather weak overview, was due to public outcry. Let's continue to make our voices heard.

My opinion is that the AP lacks a decent theme. We still lack a proper overview. And overall, the AP is not up to the standard of the core books.

While we are at it, you also mention Keep on Shadowfell, and you are right - this too is a bit weak (although it is the first module so it propably should be simple and straight forward), and I have no great love for Pyramid of Shadows either. Thunderspire Labyrinth has so far been the best, maybe mostly because it is more a set piece, a springboard for making your own adventures.

Well, it was not the kind of overview I was hoping for, but it is better than nothing.

I also think it is important to note, that someone did indeed listen to the critique.

So they have my thanks! Especially since I would like for them to continue to listen to the voices of the fans.

I think we are digressing (is that the correct term?) from the OP here :-)

Does anyone have any thoughts as what eager Scales of War GM's should do to compensate for lack of an overview?

Some obvious answers could be:
1) Wait till the whole thing is out (but thats gonna take like forever)
2) Use some of Paizos excellent AP (but conversion might be daunting a task for some...)

So what would you recommend for those eager to try out the only currently available 4e AP ?

Should we be afraid of improvising, fearing that som NPC might turn out to have whole different role to play later? Should you just stick to the plot? Should we maybe not worry so much, since whaveter problems arise we can just fix it as we go along?

What do you all think?

TommyJ wrote:

Like other posters, I would be curious to see if Erik or James has anything to say on this. You have managed several AP, so could their be valid reasons not to give us an overview?

James graced a similiar EN world threat with a comment.

TommyJ wrote:

I agree with Scott. Some of you are overreacting.

My primary motivation at this point is pure schadenfreude.

I just think that comments like "I will never play this AP" is out of proportion. Because at some point in time, the whole thing will have been published, and the point of an overview will be moot.

But I totally see the problem about the lack of overview, and I am surprised that Wizards cannot see this.

Imagine if you will, that this was a published print adventure. Would you buy part one of a (say) 12 part series, if you had no idea in what direction the saga would take you? We should at least know what type of campaign it is! For example, Savage Tides AP clearly signalled "high seas" and "swashbuckling" as part of the themes. But Scales just doesn't tell me very much.

Like other posters, I would be curious to see if Erik or James has anything to say on this. You have managed several AP, so could their be valid reasons not to give us an overview?

Since the Dragonpistols in my campaign are just regular items, just like any other weapon they can be found in magical variants (or enchanted).

That way you can have a +1 Thundering Dragonpistol or a +4 Flameburst Dragonpistol.

But just like there are no +X arrows in 4E, I think you should stay clear of various types of magical ammo (see phb p.232).

I have allowed silver bullets though!

I agree with Scott. Some of you are overreacting.

But that is not to say that we cannot discuss the lack of overview, which I personally find slightly annoying.

Their reasons for not giving us an outline are simply not valid (IMO).

But I hope that Wizards will see the light. Paizo have a lot of experience in this, and Wizards should learn from them.

As it is, we have no idea if the AP turns into a large scale war with the PC's acting as generals... if they instead track down the masterminds behind the war and confront them in the abyss (sorry Shadowfell) or whatever...

This makes it hard to know, if the AP is for you!

Thanks Sean, for actually answering my query :-)

I have found and listened to Radio Free Homlett and Fear the Boot so far.
Both were good fun. It's great that some people care to do the work these productions must entail. I recommend both podcasts to anyone interrested in D&D.

TommyJ wrote:

Here are my dragonpistol rules for those who are interrested. -SNIP-

So if you roll a natural one on your to hit roll, does the dragon come alive and bite the user?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for my Shackled City campaign I gave my players a brief outline of what the laws of Cauldron are, what punishments are possible, what the attitude towards non-PC races is, what a trial might look like (for people of different social classes), whether vigilanteism is condoned, etc. Personally I find that sort of thing very helpful if I'm playing a character who's trying to be a law-abiding citizen. For a wilderness adventure it doesn't matter as much.

TommyJ wrote:

If you have character that are nobles, and supposedly know the law - well just let them make some of the decisions. Give them some credit for being nobles. Their word will likely carry 10 times the weight of normal people. So unless they are caught slaughtering people in the street, the can most likely get away with anything.

The problem is that two of the nobles seem to think that killing some derro meets "community standards" and one of them disagrees. Obviously they can't both be right.

The players: Well they should just defer to the GM. And if he says the subject is uncertain, then their characters are free to continue bickering over the issue. Either of them could be right. Time will show.

The nobles: Well, maybe they just see things differently. In any case, since this happens in game, they should look for in-game solutions. They could consult a law-scribe, a judge, another noble or whatever.

The real problem lies in whether or not this issue would cause the two characters to part ways (and break up the party), and to me it sounds like they are both hoping the GM will step in as some kind of referee on this issue and declare a winner. I think that is wrong!

The truth is that no one knows if it is "okay" to kill some derro. The DM may have to rule how different people react to this, but I am sure that there is no fixed consensus on the matter in Corvosa.

Finally. Don't get me wrong. I think it is okay for a player to ask his DM out of character, "eh - I am in doubt - would killing a derro be viewed as wrong?". But if DM says "there is a number of opinions on that". Then you just have to make up your own mind.

It sounds a little like some people would like hard and fast rules - laws - to hang on to, because they are unsure how to adjucate trouble in the city. This applies to players as well as GM's.

My advice is to loosen up. You are not playing Lawyers & Lawsuits, you are playing D&D. My gut instinct would be that in a lawfull fantasy city with an evil bend, then might is right! The nobility has more priviliges than the working folks, and below them are the rabble that propably have little or no rights.

So forget about terms like "Intentional Manslaughter" - this is medieval fantasy times, people get killed or not. Who cares if it was "premeditated".

If you have character that are nobles, and supposedly know the law - well just let them make some of the decisions. Give them some credit for being nobles. Their word will likely carry 10 times the weight of normal people. So unless they are caught slaughtering people in the street, the can most likely get away with anything.

The players who are asking for guidelines, should look at their character and decide what he/she would think, and worry less about what the lawtexts of Corvosa says.

This is kinda funny, since Tbug ran into similar trouble (see other thread).

However your problem is more easily identified.

For a city adventure, players should not be allowed to make characters that are say... hermits or someone that hates to be in the city. That is just silly.

That would be like you starting a Dark Sun campaign, and I say I would like to play some kind of frosty barbarian type.

Maybe you need to outline the campaign a bit more for them! That is, tell them that this is campaign where a lot of the action takes place in the city. Have them come up with reasons for them to be in the city!

When I read that you have a rogue stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it sounds as if at least some of your players have gotten the idea :-)

I would nip this in bud and ask the two players to rethink their character concepts.

You could have a city-hating druid, if the player comes up with a powerfull enough reason why he would want to be in the city. It could make for fun roleplaying to hear him grumple as you move around the city (though it may get old).

There should be a way to link the gypsy with the whole gypsy theme in the campaign, giving him some kind of gypsy quest to help things along.

Hope this helps!

Here are my dragonpistol rules for those who are interrested.

Dragon Pistol:
Prof. +2, Range 10/20, Damage 1d12, Reload Minor

In addition I gave the pistol an item power! As if it was magical, which it is not. But it functions the same way. Doing it this way, made it clear that your could use that power in conjuction with other powers.

Scattershot (standard, at will)
Area burst 1 within 10
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Target: Each creature in burst.
Damage: 1d6 + dexterity bonus

TommyJ wrote:

I have made homebrew rules for guns for my Ptolus campaign (which I am converting to 4E).

My biggest concern has been how guns interacted with Powers, because aside from that, they work just like other missile weapons. In other words, they shoot at AC, they have a proficiency rating a reload of minor and so on.

The thing is, I need to able to visualize it... If a player is using a power to move and fire twice - my mind drift to various gun-fu movies. And it looks cool as he throws himself sideways while firing at the ogre. Buuuut....

Don't you find this basically true with all the powers? I'd think that Gun-Fu would fit right in and it'll certainly be part and parcel of of how I do the powers. To each their own of course.

The answer to that is yes! It clearly states so in the reload time description - that reload is considered part of the power.

So I did not want the dragonpistols in my campaign to be worse off than other weapons. So it all boiled down to visualizing it. Maybe the crossbow guy loads two bolts to his crossbow. Maybe dragonpistols could fire more than once (multiple barrels).

I have made homebrew rules for guns for my Ptolus campaign (which I am converting to 4E).

My biggest concern has been how guns interacted with Powers, because aside from that, they work just like other missile weapons. In other words, they shoot at AC, they have a proficiency rating a reload of minor and so on.

The thing is, I need to able to visualize it... If a player is using a power to move and fire twice - my mind drift to various gun-fu movies. And it looks cool as he throws himself sideways while firing at the ogre. Buuuut....

If the gun is a frontloaded contraption - the illusion falls apart. How could he possibly fire twice (or even 3 times on later levels) and still have time to pour gunpowder and bullets down the barrel. No way.
So my approach has been one of fanstical technology. Something stated already in the Ptolus book (to the effect that technology in Ptolus were not meant to be realistic - it was fantasy-technology after all).

So the end is that the so called dragon-pistols of Ptolus can fire several shots at a time before reload is needed.

I'll second the voice that said "talk to everyone about it".
I have read the synnopsis, including Uldeims responses. On one hand it seems very much like he is thinking in character, and that his trouble is that he no longer feels his character can/would coorperate with the course of action the others want. I admire him for sticking to his characters motives, rather than bending to the fit the intended path.

However, his own admitted joy of "wrecking the plot" does not sit well with me. I think that, even within your characters motivation, you must still think of this a group activity! Had it been a book, there would just be chapters on what Siolin went about doing... but in the end - since he plans not to be in the thick of the action - he would not be the hero of the book. Just a supporting character.

There are a few good rules for creating a character, and one of them is that you must create a character that would want to go on adventure!
So in my opinion the problem lies with the whole concept that they cooked up. The Black Fox voiced his concern from the start... It seems that with this setup, your are not going to be playing the AP, but something else. This is then compounded be the fact that appearently some of the other players would rather play a more traditional approach to the whole thing.

My guess is that some of these players did not voice their objections from the get-go, or did not see where it would lead. Now is the time to assess the situation and find out what everyone would like to do.

Hello Scott,
I would just like to say, that your work is much appreciated (and especially sharing it with us).
I am currently converting my own 3.5 Ptolus campaign to 4E, and I have read your blog with keen interest.
Thanks again.

Where do you find these excellent podcasts?
I have already heard the Penny Arcade stuff... but cannot find the others you mention.

I agree with Tadkil. This is 4E - love it or....

Seriously though, you are coming at this from the wrong direction. You want things to be like you remember them... and changing the rules like that, hmmmm. Refer to the DMG guide on houserules. It makes a few valid points. Here I think you have to realize the effect such a change would have (if you ruled undead immune to sleep). Because in that vein, there is a slew of other "logical" changes that you would make. Before you know it, you have changed the balance.

My advice is, to forget about it. Accept the way things work in 4E, or go back to playing 3.5.

> But the bottom line is, that the reviewer does not seem to have actually tried the game.

Right now I've 6 sessions of 4e under my belt - 4 as GM, 2 as player and I'm in the middle of organizing a fairly large 4e D&D Gladiatorial Fight Club involving almost 30 characters between 9 players.

So yeh, you could say I've tried it...... :D

Agree on the index, and/or possibly a much more detailed listing of contents.
Disagree with much of everything else.

You should not remove artwork to make room for more powers, that's just silly. The book needs to be pleasing to the eye as well as informative.

Removing some of the powers/spells and making them rituals is a stroke of genius. I am guessing that he has not tried using the system (he propably feels that having played since Lazarus, he can tell how a system works just by looking at it). Delve deeper and you will find that the ritual idea is really clever.

More or less powers? It is true that there is a lot less powers pr character than in 3.5. But that was a conscious choice from the designers, not an error. This was done to remove those tedious times when the partys high level mage (or cleric) has to spend 25 min (real time) to make his spell program.

I could go on. But the bottom line is, that the reviewer does not seem to have actually tried the game.

We tried the games-day scenario to test the rules and see how everyone liked (or not).
We created a party of:
-Dwarven cleric
-Dragonborn Fighter
-Tiefling Warlock
-Human Wizard

As it turned out, it seems like we were really missing a rogue or ranger for combat mobility. Both fighter and cleric were tough in a fight, but once in-a-fight they were stuck there! Having two spellcasters in a 4-person party, were propably too much. At the very least we would have to carefully map out our strategy with that composition.

While it's great to allow players to do cool stuff like throwing enemies around, it sort of devalues the feats and/or class abilities that allow you to do the same thing.

I'd vote for "allow it within reason, but give it a hefty penalty".

Maybe you are going about this the wrong way...
You admit to being a powergamer yourself, but describe the player as a more roleplaying oriented fellow that likes odd characters.
So maybe it is not so important to said player how much damage he does, but more important that he gets to envision the carnage he is inflicting!
I understand (and admire) that you recognize your own GM "weakness", a tendency to say no to anything new or weird (or am I misunderstanding this?). You are afraid to set a dangerous precedent that will lead to everyone throwing monsters around if it turns out to be the most effective way of combat!
Ideally you would want people to do different things in each combat, to make things interesting. But, sometimes it is also cool for someone to have a trademark attack...
In the end I'd allow for the player to do it. Come up with some rule on the spot. If it turns out to be too powerfull, you can always change your ruling later!
Be sure however to narrate the coolness of what happens! Because that is what I think your player wants! So he knocks down two foes by throwing a third, it happens all the time in Xena :-) They may be stunned one round, and embarassed! Then they get back up and attack the party with newfound vigor.
If you feel it gets out of hand (the player is doing nothing else) you can always take him aside and ask him to change tactics or let the bad guys start copying his moves! "Oh no, the evil twin doppelganger has lifted our magic user and oh crap - he is gonna throw him".

Korgoth wrote:

A lot of demon lords/ evil gods really like fallen clerics or paladins, and might even give him some bonus stuff.

I was literally about to make a similar suggestion until I saw that the requestor said the player didn't actually want to stay evil. However, the idea is still sound. Perhaps a demon or dark god claims the character reguardless of his willingness, so that's just one more obstical to overcome.

But thanks.

First of all, you have to determine who wants this change of alignment :
Is it the player because he was bored to play a goody-goody character ?
Is it the character who, when he comes back from death feels he bas been manipulated and abused and gets back his free will to be evil ?
Of course, it can be both.

Then think what could justify this change :
Is it purely the willpower of the character ?
Or is there some dark power trying to get him back on the bad side ?

Then decide how the deity/church of the priest could react :
Do they consider him as a betrayer ? An atrocity ? A victim ?
Do they want to help him by showing him the "light" ?
Do they send a crusader after him, to stay the renegade ?

In your game, what are the rules for clercis and alignment ?
Do they clerics have to match exactly the alignment of the god ?
Can they have a variation of one step ?
Can they have whatever alignment they want ?

Bringing answers to these questions might give you ideas how the situation could evolve.
You don't necessary have to chastise the character with a divine retribution, killing him.
But you can make him understand that his church might want to have a serious talk with him...

I think the player just felt it could open up for some cool roleplaying opportunities. He does not seem to want to break up the party. I do not think he really wants to play a bad character.

I follow the normal rules that allow alignment to be one step away from the deity. Nick no longer follow this rule. He has no spells now.

I am thinking about having the redemptionists kidnap him again, and turn his alignment around. Hmmm... that could lead to some interesting stuff.

Okay, here is the situation:
A player character in my campaign, lets call him Nick, is a level 1 rogue and level 4 cleric.
Nicks background (made by the player) states that he was once a chaotic scoundrel and thief, but he was taken to the Brotherhood of Redemption and changed.

The campaign is set in Ptolus, and the redemptionists are a bunch of monks that change evil creatures to good.

Normally they do not work on humans, but Nick is a special case.
After Nicks redemption he took up the priestly garb, and became a holy man. Fine.

Well, Nick died during the last game session and was raised.

The player, at first reluctant to be raised at all, decides that it would be cool if he reverted to his old alignment. I go along.

Now however, I worry that the party has become too weak, and ponder what to do!

Nick has dropped a level. He is no longer a working cleric, since his alignment is chaotic and his god is lawfull. So in effect, Nick has become doubbly weakened, and the party is without a cleric.

Now I am thinking of a cool way too fix the problem. Any ideas?

I guess I'll have to state this explicitly in a separate post--I have stated it multiple times above but perhaps it is being overlooked...

I am not advocating a separate system just for bows, though the thread title is focused oon Archery. A reading of my posts will easily show I'm advocating a modification for melee and ranged combat in general. So, with that in mind, are there comments specifically on my suggested feats? One whether Assassin and finger of death are balanced with core martial classes?

To state it again, I am not requesting a separate system just for bows. I am requesting a mechanic that balances core classes like Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger with existing core mechanics like Death Attack and save-or-die spells.

Also, I started a separate thread for save-or-die in the Pathfinder RPG dicussion forum.

You also wrote earlier:

Well, except for those rules already exist in the form of save-or-die effects. I do not advocate removing these from the game--it's one of the worst things brought on by 4e IMHO. My players accept save-or-die all the time, and they all thought it's removal in 4e was a mistake.

In other threads people are disucussing (advocating) more hp for starting characters, and no matter how much we end up with it seems to be certain that we will get more hp (higher HD for wizards, extra hp for favored class, ect. ect.). The direction we are heading, is for a less deadly game. You clearly dislike that. You want death to lurk right around the corner... and while I can appreciate the virtue of this, I still think you are taking D&d along the wrong path. Save or die effects are a thing of the past, lets not re-introduce them through combat.

[quote]we are in an alpha test for a "new" RPG, albeit one that maintains compatiblity with an existing system. I'm not certain how recommendations to leave out suggestions and/or go use another system are constructive to this test. Thus far I have specifically noted issues in the current system and suggestions for adjusting those. A comparison to a 15th level sorcerer with finger of death, or perhaps a Rogue 5/Assassin 10, will pretty quickly show that this concept is in no way imbalanced to existing 3.5 core rules. My goal is simply to open up these options to other martial-focused characters.
Sorry Erian_7 - it was not my intention to curb the general discussion. I simply stated my opinion, that you are going in the wrong direction... in my opinion.
Tussock wrote it in a funny way - I thought. So I seconded his post.
I still think there is no reason to change the way bows work as opposed to all other weapons. As another poster wrote; you also have to hit people with swords many times before the fall. Why should archery be different? Simply because it offends your sense of realism I suspect!
So, in my opinion, D&D combat is an abstract thing. If you want "realism" then you should go for another system. That was all that I pointed out. It is all part of the discussion process!

Just a short note to say, that I like your new turning rules.

I haven't really gotten used to turning in 3.5. It is complicated (like grappls-complicated). Your system is easy, and I like the healing effect.

It also makes evil clerics nasty, when they back up their undead by healing them! Nice :-)

4e is doing the right thing here. Surely there must be some way we can adopt that.

In my experience, spells that last longer than 1 combat (but shorter than a day) led my groups to adopt a policy of: "Quickly lets search for more monsters while I still have my xxxx spell on". This often seems a bit silly.

So I like spells to work instantaneously, for a combat or for a day. There could be spells like charm that required a save every day...

I am not so much fond of 4e doing spells that require saves every round. This seems time consuming to me.

Please, keep the crit confirmation!
It is a great source of excitement that easily justifies an extra roll. "Oh man - it's a threat - yeah come on, gimme a crit...". Players love this.

And straight crits simply does not work. People who only hit on a 20 will always score a crit when they hit (due to their lack of skill!?).

Another thing, the current system allows for simple diferences in the weapons. Some score crits more easily. This is cool.

GURPS is that way ->. Have fun with it.

Erian_7; what you are looking for is simply the opposite of what D&D tries to do. And any rule that allows for a direct kill, could in turn be used on your players. No player will accept that he was killed outright by a perfect shot - who cares if the archer used 10 rounds to aim.

My feeling is that no spell should cost xp or even rare/expensive components. If a spell is balanced out by these extra costs, the spell needs to be powered down, so that there is no need for the extra price.
The reasons for this is simple.
Players (in my experience) will never choose to cast a spell that cost xp. Never.
Players will never want a spell with expensive components, they will feel cheated.
Rate components that need to be chased down, belong in magical rituals - part of some storyline plot or something - not regular everday spells.

I'm torn on this.

Main concern is that it is too complex, leaving the gm behind as he must keep track of all the "chains" his NPC's are currently planning. Even players (especially mine) may end up forgetting there plan.

Second concern is frequence of use. If a feat requires 3 rounds to effectively unfold, and we assume it also requires a few external factors to gel (monsters not dying just before my fantastic Demonic Cleave attack forcing me to move instead), then - then you may end up thinking like another poster said - that you will never get to use this feat enough.

However, I like the one pr round restriction actually! It cuts down a little on the powerhouse combos people always seem to come up with. Even if such a combo does not exist with the current combat feats, there will surely be more to follow, and in the end no designer can predict the possibly overpowered combos resulting.

I think that combat-feats should be self-contained manouvers, or possibly with limited "chaining".

I think I will give this new skill system a chance before discarding it!

Jason, you write yourself in the introduction of the new rules, that many people just take a few levels of rougue or fighter before branching into something else.
A reason for this (in 3.5), is that you get a bundle of skill points from the rouge. So if you play a fighter or wizard - but want to put some points in spot, listen and search (to name a few) you just need that one rouge level.
I am sure you are aware of this. As you also note thate the rogues skill allotment is trimmed down just a pinch.
So far I think it looks good!

If we must have extra starting hp, I like the idea of extra hp based on race. However - this would have to be balanced by some other bonus to those choosing be gnomes or halfling.
I am not sure though, that we need it at all. In the old (really old) days, people started with 1d4 + con bonus hp (as a wizard). Now you get max hp on your first level. Do we really need more "help" than that?
Giving out 30 or more hp is just too much. It takes away the sense of being a young inexperienced character on its way to fame, if you are already build like a tank!
As another commented, you could just leave these as options! Instead of making it standard.

Tommy,

Just so you know, our policies on priding our own products online are designed with retailers in mind—we specifically price our items, including subscriptions, so as not to undercut our retailers.

You might notice that most of the non-Paizo products we sell online bear a 10% discount off of retail, but we don't generally discount our own products at all (except for the occasional sale). The exception to this is for two of our subscriptions—Pathfinder and Planet Stories.

Pathfinder is an exception because it served as somewhat of a replacement for Dragon and Dungeon, which had always carried discounted subscriptions. And, as has been noted, once shipping is included, the total cost approaches suggested retail.

Planet Stories, on the other hand, is a line that's aimed more at mass-market bookstores than hobby retailers, and those retailers frequently post discounts and don't generally consider a discount from the publisher to be a problem.

By the way, I am very happy with both your Pathfinder and Game Mastery products. I like them personally, and they do very well in my shop -maybe because I recommend them :-)

I thank you for your response.