tallforadwarf's page

They fought the aboleths with laser beams coming out of their sesame seeds.

That's got to be one of the weirdest euphemisms I've ever heard. Oh wait, wha- You're serious? Okay.... ;P

I think one of the main selling points of this setting is it's fans - everyone's so upbeat and helpful. I officially stopped posting in the WotC forums today (they took down the FR forums), and it was beginning to get me really down with all the negativity. This is the first time in a long time I'm excited about gaming again.

Thank You, Paizo.

Indeed, that's the reason I love this place. Great people, all fans of a great company that cares about said people. What's going on here is unique.

Thanks to all!

tfad

I feel like your post was made in response to mine, so here's me, sticking my opinions out in public again! :)

First off, a paladin is going to have a strong emphasis on Charisma anyway (SNIP)

Although you didn't quote me, I'm assuming that your comments on the importance of Charisma were aimed (roughly) towards me as I'm the only one who mentioned it. :) I think you may have misread my post, or at least my intention. I think Charisma is the most important stat for a Paladin and your fix does not change this. That is good because it does not need changing. However, there are those out there who feel the Paladin suffers badly from multiple ability score dependency and your fix addresses these players' concerns. Well done. :)

Sacred Challenge is actually more powerful and more versatile than smite evil.

I personally was arguing for the Flavor of smite, over that of challenge. The flavor of class features is very important and goes a long way to illustrate what the class is. Heroic Paladins smite evil, whether or not they challenge it formally first, is a matter of personal taste (within the boundaries of their code, of course).

Sacred Challenge will usually work since almost every opponent you face will be evil or neutral.

This depends entirely on what type of game you are playing. Regularly gaming in the Planescape setting, we have a fair number of good vs. good battles as well. We've never felt the Paladin has been underpowered or unable to contribute in these battles (although I will admit that our group is not typical in this regard).

If you want your paladins to be only Lawful Good only then don't allow Neutral Good and Chaotic Good paladins in your game. All I've done there is to create a guide for the differences in conduct by providing 3 different codes because some people do want to play a NG or CG paladin and may not be sure how to role-play the character.

This is very much a 'hot topic' with regard to Paladins! Everyone has their own opinions and views on what a Paladin is. A Paladin follows a code, so has to be Lawful. How can you truly be of chaotic alignment and also adhere to a strict code? :) I think that there is a stronger argument for LN or LE Paladins (Blackguards?) than there is for non-Lawful Paladins. Although as stated in my original post, I'm strongly in favor of LG Paladins only. NG or CG characters are not Paladins, but champions of (X).

The idea of players not being sure how to roleplay the character of a Paladin, is no different from them struggling to roleplay any other type of character. I think what you're referring to is the inability to separate alignment and the Paladin's code from the character's personality. Roleplaying any personality different from your own can be difficult and, in my experience with players who are not sure how to portray a Paladin, the code and strong alignment bias actually helps.

Also it is very difficult to come up with a code and stick to it if you are truly chaotic at heart. The first time one of the tenants of the code comes into conflict with the world, the world will win and the code will be abandoned. Part of the fun of being a champion of virtue is that it is not always easy. ;)

Pathfinder is about improving gameplay and playability of characters, is it not? Can you deny that this increases the playability and flexibility of the class?

Again, you don't quote me specifically, but I'll try to answer the point you've raised. Pathfinder is also about backwards compatibility. Changing central class features for new ones and relegating the old ones to feats goes directly against compatibility. Also changing the nature of the class in a drastic way (i.e. the alignment restrictions) has a big effect on the established game worlds.

For example, why are there now suddenly non-Lawful Paladins? It would not be long until the Lawful and Chaotic Paladins came directly into conflict, where as this sort of conflict would have previously been unheard of (within the Paladin's order).
Specifically Re: your changes to Detect Evil, check out the link above to my group's playtest report. Paladins are our group's favorite class, so we've got a lot to say and have some very strong opinions. I won't paste it all here though, my post is long enough already (probably timed out long ago.... Must remember to copy text!).

I don't think that allowing NG or CG Paladins does increase the playability or flexibility of the class, no. This is because your changes alter what the Paladin class is. I apologize if that sounds blunt but you've issued a very direct challenge/question there. :) Your new version of the Paladin is not a Paladin, but a champion of good.
Also, tying all of the class' main features to the uses of channel energy does not increase flexibility. Now Paladins have to make tough choices whether to smite/challenge, heal, summon their mount etc. That's a lot less flexible.

I don't want to labor this point too much though, as words like 'playability', 'usefulness' and 'fun' are all very subjective.

In summary, well done with your redesign and as a 'champion of good', I can see it working as a class. However, I can't think about it as a Paladin as you've changed some of the central points of class (IMHO). The Pathfinder version of the Paladin a la Alpha 2, is more backwards compatible and doesn't change the core ideas, hence I prefer it.

I apologize if the above points were not directed at me and I just bulldozed into your discussion. :)

Peace,

tfad

Sacred Challenge (Su): A paladin can expend a use of her channel positive energy ability to mark an opponent as an enemy of the faith.

I gotta say I don't like the flavor of sacred challenge at all. "Smite" has some real power to it, this just sounds too 'diffuse'. Also replacing Detect Evil with a 'Scan/Smite' power is a bad idea. Me, and my group, wrote a lot about why this power is very important in our Playtest Report.

Also this:

Character must be good-aligned and must have a patron deity.

is a big no-no for our group (who all love Paladins, a lot). They need to be Lawful Good.

Other than that, the changes are okay. :) Basing more abilities off of channeling energy means that the importance of Charisma just doubled, which will no doubt please the Paladin fans who don't like the MAD side of the class. But it also means that they Paladin is a lot weaker and needs the boosts you've given, like the extra skill points.

Personally would be happier with the Pathfinder Paladin 'as is'.

Peace,

tfad

Improvised Weapon of Legend(su): In his rage the barbarian can use almost anything as a weapon. (SNIP)

This particular power is something that needs to be in there and one my group argued for in our recent playtest report. However it would be better if it simply removed the penalty for improvised weapons and was available from the start. As it stands it could get ridiculous and very Exalted, very fast.

I'll not comment on the other powers as I'm away from my Alpha right now and don't want to re-download it. :)

Peace,

tfad

Even better - how many hp's do the children in the orphanage have?

Sick, just sick.... My players are going to love to hate evil Cleric's now! ;)

tfad

Some great ideas on this page! Hope it comes to the attention of the designers....

tfad

I loved the different XP rates for the different classes in earlier editions, in fact I personally think it can be an easier way to balance the different classes and if WotC had stuck to this formula then I bet half of the later classes they released wouldn't have been so far out of whack. That and some editing anyway.... ;P

As someone who loved the idea, I gotta say it probably won't work unless you make other changes to the game also. E.g. what the classes get for their HD etc. I have two suggestions, but am leaving the details to someone with a more mechanical mind.

1) The fast chart gets you the full Pathfinder set up. Classes using the slower progressions get the pre-Pathfinder classes and set up e.g. few feats, more limited skill choices, smaller HD etc. It's important that the PCs on the slower chart actually get something more for their XP and as they stand so far, Pathfinder changes have addressed a lot of the balance issues between say 17 levels of Fighter and 17 levels of Wizard. You may want to take this further too, e.g.

Fast XP - 1 Feat/3 Levels
Med XP - 2 Feats/3 Levels
Slow XP - 3 Feats/ 3 Levels

etc.

Although again, as you're monkeying around with the balance of the game, get someone more capable than I to look at your final numbers.

2) Play 2nd Ed. with the Pathfinder class abilities. It'll probably be easier to work out and as the class features are largely balanced and could be easily converted, it could involve a lot less work than 1).

That said, as much as I love the idea, I think it's gone now, a relic of gaming, and you're probably better off trying to capture the spirit of the older editions through play style than mechanics.

Whatever you decide to do - good luck with the game!

Peace,

tfad

Celestial and Planar conjunctions are a must - great for planning the *big* events of your campaign around.

Fun Holidays - doesn't matter what the celebration is for, but it's always good to have the fun, lighthearted days in there too. They can be used a la Logue, or as a break and change of pace for the hard working PCs.

Important People's Birthdays - like kings, queens, heroes etc. It never fails to inspire the PCs when they work it out;

"Hang on, we could like, have a festival named after us?!?! They do that sort of thing around here? What are we waiting for - let's save this chick and murder this dragon! w00t!"

It helps if some of those people are still alive too.

Peace,

tfad

Wow.

Just... wow.

Yeah, that's how I feel reading your stuff too.... Not sure how my wife is going to feel about this!

;P

Peace,

tfad

(Dirty Stuff)

An appropriate response.

The 3.x monk is certainly powerful enough. My complaint is that every time I make a monk he looks pretty much the same as all the previous ones.

Agreed! I want to see some real options within the class. Not long to go before we find out....

tfad

Turn Undead is kind of like exorcisim,

The power of Paizo compels you! The power of Paizo compels you!

You could compromise, here, and still allow turning, but with the spell-failure chance currently associated with deafness (20%?).

Then, there's still a point to silencing the enemy cleric, to protect your undead minions, but the cleric's player doesn't feel totally hosed.

That's a nice compromise - well done. I like this as it feels right, the Cleric (or Paladin) could be shocked and momentarily concerned as they shout their praises and can't hear anything. That brief lapse in concentration would be enough to cause an arcane spell to fail, so it could do the same to Channeling. On a successful check it goes something more like: "God, I know I can't hear me but you still can!" [mouths shouting in slo-mo with no noise]

Awesome! Well done snorter!

Peace,

tfad

Some Stuff

Roundhouse kick? Nah, but I'd trade spells for a Shatner-kick any day! ;)

I've never felt the strong pull that a lot of players apparently have, to give the ranger trackless step. You can use the Wilderness Lore/Survival skill to cover your tracks if necessary, and it's a very 'druidy' thing to have the ground refuse your tracks for you.

The modern 'classic' example is always the LotR movies, with Letgomyass or whatever he's called walking on top of the snow. I feel like that's an 'Elvy' thing, not a 'rangery' thing and cannot imagine Aragorn doing it.

Feats, a la the fighter, in place of spells would be a very welcome and no doubt very popular option.

Peace,

tfad

This needs to go in the Campaign Setting hardcover, perhaps as a sidebar.

Agreed! This is made of awesome!

tfad

....you won't see the Big Magic Plague because someone who has no idea about D&D....

Perhaps it says something that I misread the above as Big Mac Plague....

Long live Golarion! Long live Paizo! Long live her fans!

Peace,

tfad

They are less like nomads and more like city raccoons living alongside humans,

I'm sure there's a halfling chimney sweep joke in there somewhere, which is great because it was one of the first things I thought of, reading the Gazetteer.

Stuff the little buggers up a chimney! ;)

Peace,

tfad

I thought Detective Monk was Tony Shalhoub? He's got the Quivering Palms!

Dude! You made me choke on my coke! LMFAO!

tfad

Speaking of which: I wouldn't mind an official option of trading ranger spells (and paladin spells, too) for something else, much like all the stuff from PF.

That'd be cool. It'd have to be a pretty awesome option to tear me away from the spells though. Do you have anything in mind? I can't think of anything suitably ranger-y....

tfad

It should also be noted that this particular ranger does not have spells due to his low Wisdom... poor guy.

As no one else seems to have said it;

Thank goodness it looks like rangers will still get their spells!

;P

Peace,

tfad

I didn't see this one pointed out yet. Evil is not untrustworthy. Trust is lawful, cheating and lying is chaotic. For example, LE cares about tradition, loyalty, and order. He is loath to break laws and promises.

Good catch!

Peace,

tfad

Just out of curiousity, why is this so key? I'm relatively sure Optimis Prime doesn't have Detect Evil. He has to make the tough decisions himself. Yeah, I know, Decepticons aren't as deceptive as they maybe should be, but still.

Yo!

No the Decepticons are anything but deceptive. The only way I can really accept this is that they earned their name before they all became energon junkies. ;) In fairness though, as cartoon villians they did their job i.e. got you jumping in excitement when they got their a$$es kicked.

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit harsh, but there's a degree to which I'm bringing up the idea because of the phrase 'The above problem is with how the game is run'. That comes off a little judgemental, there.

Apologies. I ended my post, and most of my posts, "peace" because I don't want to offend anyone and for those who don't know me IRL, I certainly don't want to be thought of as judgmental. I'll try to rephrase and clarify what *I* meant and hopefully this time I can do it without sounding like an a$$. :) I say *I* because with some of my group posting here, they can speak for themselves. :)

Our group is a roleplay heavy group, sometimes with several sessions, especially at low levels, between straight knock-down combats. We do a lot of social interaction stuff and enjoy political games. In these games we have a lot of Paladins, as they're a real favorite, running around detecting evil all over the place. Often one of the first things asked when encountering an NPC is "Oooh! Is (s)he evil?" Of course, trying to use this power without the NPC noticing can require skill checks etc. e.g. a bluff check.

There is no harm in the PCs having this information! I'll try to explain the way we play it.

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they're out to get the PCs. Aside from the 'enemy of my enemy' classic, they're all people too. If an NPC has a name more imaginative than 'goblin 6', chances are they also have a personality and role to play in the ongoing plot. Just knowing that someone is evil doesn't mean that you immediately know everything about them. For example, when making a deal of sorts a CE NPC would be much more likely to screw the PCs over than a LE NPC. It's up to the PCs to figure out who they are and what they want. Knowing they're evil is not the same as knowing who they are. Here's an example from our games:

The Pcs needed help to complete a powerful spell and their ally, an NPC apprentice wizard, suggests a deal with her master's rival (as her master is missing, with no hope of finding him). Allus the Tongue is an evil wizard who is most interested in why his long-missing rival's apprentice has come to him for help. The PCs know he's evil, thanks to the Paladin detecting his aura. They accept his help but don't trust him to keep his end of the bargain.
He does and they continue to suspect him as he continues to help. He gives them powerful magic items as gifts and acts as a sage when they need information.
Eventually the Paladin and the Thief sit down with Allus and have a heart to heart with him. He opens up and tells them that he is seeking redemption for his past evil acts. He explains a little more about himself and the PCs discover that he was never so much as evil, more just very ruthless in his rivalry and now, as an older man, he's trying to set somethings straight before he passes on.

The PCs know that if they had just 'scan/smite', not only would they have not received the help that they needed at the time, but also that they would have killed someone who was trying to be a good person. The players know that every NPC is a person and not just a stat block or XP bottle waiting to be opened. Allus' history was not available with a simple sense motive check or with a quick history roll. Even if it was, as he never made a public 'declaration of repentance', the PCs could never had known he was seeking to do good. And alignments don't just switch over night (although that's another topic for another time).

Also, just because someone is evil doesn't mean they're being evil right now. This might sound silly but being evil is not a smite-able offence. Picture an evil devil eating shrieking souls in a messy fashion in the corner of a suitably planar establishment. The Paladin sees this and detects his aura as evil. Should he immediately go over there and smite him?
Our group could not do this as there are too many unanswered questions in the scene, yet we've seen the same DMs who complain that the ability should go, run scenes like this then scream at the players who didn't get the first blow in "BUT HE'S EVIL AND EATING SOULS!"
For us, it'd look something like this. Are the souls he's eating evil? Did the devil acquire these souls legally (e.g. contracts, trade etc.)? Does the devil want to be doing this (e.g. is he under contract to behave in this way, charmed etc.)? etc. etc. This sort of thing has a huge effect on whether or not the Paladin can associate with the devil also, if the devil is playing by the rules and those are evil souls then there is no reason why they couldn't enjoy a drink together.

Although the Paladin would do well to watch said drink.... ;P

Semi-continuing the above example, as well as having a duty to good, Paladins are also Lawful. Lawful means no starting fights without recourse to the law of the land etc. The above devil could be challenged, but the Paladin could not just 'scan/smite' without breaking the lawful aspect of their code. Remember the 'legitimate authority' bit. That also applies in places like Hell (in Planescape at the very least).

Evil does not mean stupid is another aspect of this argument. We see those same DMs I'm singling out (again) complaining that their evil scheming NPC is a mastermind and the Paladins are ruining their schemes. Real masterminds never get their hands dirty and certainly don't put themselves into the position to be smote! Again, we come back to the Paladin respecting authority, conducting themselves in a lawful manner and treating the NPC like a person, not just another bottle of XP waiting to be opened.
What if the king was evil but his lands were well run, his people protected by a well trained army etc. ? He's only evil because he loves power, wealth and little serving girls, running his kingdom well to ensure he retains that power. If he doesn't have an heir, or if he has warlike neighbors, killing him is going to lead to a hell of a mess and the 'scan/smite' Paladin should be mindful of such decisions.

I guess the core of my argument is very situational and that is what I was trying to convey. Essentially:

The players will naturally respond to the style of game you are running.

Those DMs I'm talking about are in the habit of being brutal towards their players and then act surprised when their players act brutally. I wanted to put out a voice that thanks the Pathfinder devs. for keeping in an ability we love, that we thought might be lost.

As a DM to a group who loves and plays Paladins, I can safely say that I have never felt like I have been forced to 'show my hand' and I've never found it hard to run a 'solid fantasy genre plot'. Oh, and I had great fun with the 'evil mentor' plot back in 2nd Ed. ;)

In direct response to the 'meat' of your question, "why is this so key?", I want to quote your post.

I have to admit, it hasn't come up for me yet, because most of my gaming group don't play paladins, and the one who does doesn't use Detect Evil much (I think because it's ICly a privacy issue to her.)

Flavor-wise, Detect Evil is good.

It's a wonderfully flavorful class feature that we feel enhances our game, not the other way around. It's great to see your Paladin as they see it as a breach of the target's privacy. That's some awesome roleplaying your group would've been deprived of if the ability was gone and we just wanted to shout out a thanks to the devs.

See, all that without referring to conceal alignment magics once!

;p

Seriously, thanks for you question and I'm sorry for any offence caused. I certainly didn't mean any and those DMs I'm singling out in my comments are people my group's met in real life and have had this conversation with too. Although I've also seen similar comments posted all of the internet, I'm trying not to think of them in my post as I've never met them and their problems may well be something completely different.

Apologies for the long answer but I've tried to be thorough!

Peace,

tfad

You should have seen one of our player's face when she found out the true meaning of "You're as strong as three men" at the Titan's Wheel.

I wish I could've seen that! I've not run the module yet but it was one very enjoyable read.

Thanks for sharing!

tfad

tfad, just wanted to say this was an excellent playtest report. Enoyable AND informative! :-)

Thank you! *blush*

tfad

There seems to be an unsightly amount of inevitable pressure to get ghost touch weapons/armor and force spells as a precaution. To alleviate that pressure while maintaining the usefulness of ghost touch property and force spells, here is a proposed solution.

My group loves the Ghostwalk book/setting which involves a lot of Ghost Touch items and incorporeal foes, so we've got quite a lot of experience with these rules.

In all honesty it's the difference between prepared or not that makes a difference to the encounter. So if the PCs are expecting ghosts etc. they tend to do well as there are other ways they can compensate without Ghost Touch items.

The miss % on attack rolls is balanced fine, it simply takes longer for the PCs to resolve the fight. If anything, the difference a suit of Ghost Touch armor makes is much larger. Most incorporeal creatures don't have stellar attack rolls, so without the AC bonus it's wiser to try to keep your opponent at range - not so easy when they can float right through stuff!

I'd vote not to change these rules. If the DM is throwing a lot of incorporeal monsters at the PCs then the PCs should either get some Ghost Touch treasure or splash out on the kit they need, e.g scrolls of force spells, Ghost Touch manacles, Ghost Touch weapons and armor etc.

Peace,

tfad

I guess it's not so much for specific things, but the total % of the changes. Of course different things would have more of an impact if they're changed e.g. removing feats has a larger % impact than increasing HD to match BAB.

For me, I'd go pretty far with the changes if I like what I'm seeing. There were some nice things in the much-maligned Everquest PHB, like XP penalties instead of LA, weapon speeds etc. Far from perfect but perfectly workable in 3.X.

If I'm doing percentages then, I'd break at about 80% change. I know that's quite high, but I'm really excited about all of the fluff we're getting. And the more new fluff that I'm excited about, the more rule changes that I'm not happy with I'd be willing to put up with.

So far Paizo is well in the black on this one, although I'm concerned about the apparent lack of spells for the ranger in the preview.

/personal panic

;P

Peace,

tfad

Yes, but that's exactly the situation with custom magic items now; the sentence you quoted is a direct cut & paste from the SRD

Ah! That's not in my 3.0 DMG, so I'm assuming that's a 3.5 update, no? We never wholesale updated to 3.5 as our core books still work fine and we've never had any compatibility issues with any 3.5 materials we've picked up.

Except for the occasional 'whoopsie' like this, although I'll stick to my guns and call this a cr*ppy, crazy rule. Didn't my original post say it felt like something WotC would do? Lol.

Thanks!

Peace,

tfad

Phaerie wrote:

Now can we get print copies of BOXM I & II at the Paizo store? Please? :)

Working on it... :)

-Lisa

w00t!

I believe the concern is more centered around how this increase in cost will affect material written prior to the change, specifically the value of equipment or treasure from encounters. Also, while not expressly prohibiting Gauntlets of Ogre Power, the 50% cost increase does discourage it in favor of a Belt of Ogre Power, or perhaps a Shirt of Ogre Power. The end result being the effective removal of a classic D&D magic item in some games.

Exactly!

While elves don't naturally sleep, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't be forced unconscious. As for sleeping pollen, I'd imagine that would classify as "poison", which, as stated in the description for Drow sleep poison, elves would not be immune to. But yes, I would also love to hear what elves do instead of sleeping in Golarion.

I guess I get a bit confused here - is unconsciousness really the same thing as sleeping? Having been both knocked unconscious and having slept, I'd vote no on this one. ;) And isn't the Dark Elf stuff explicitly made to poison Elves though? What about stuff, like pollen, that simply has that effect on creatures who do normally sleep? I guess I'm asking for clarification before this comes up in game because you know if I don't ask, it will!

Thanks for all the comments!

Peace,

tfad

Tallforadwarf's example was a tribal culture that might want to have Boots of Strength, though -- absolutely nothing has changed regarding the pricing for Boots of Strength from 3.5 to Pathfinder. That's what made me think there was some confusion.

Sorry - I picked a duff example! What I was trying to say was that if a magic item that does X in form Y is cheaper than a magic item that does X in form Z, then;

Form Z better offer some pretty good advantages to justify the cost. 'Body Slots' differing in cost is poor 'out of game' reason which places something needlessly arbitrary into the game.

and;

There are going to be a lot more of Form Y items in the world. Sure, some items are going to be more common than others, but this template now carries over the items the PCs will make.

Also, as I understood the Alpha, you couldn't have 'Boots of Strength' without paying the extra.

One of the changes we made to the Pathfinder RPG included moving all of the magic items that boost your ability scores to just a pair of slots: belt for the physical abilities and headband for the mental abilities.

and;

Wondrous items that don’t match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity. (SNIP) Belt - Physical improvement, Boots - Movement

Peace,

tfad

He doesn't have a high enough wisdom to cast ranger spells.

Good catch! Oh boy do I hope they're in there though!

Peace,

tfad

Thanks for taking the time to read it all!

Yeah, the whole item slot thing is crazy and I'm sure that Paizo will nix it for Alpha 3/Beta. At least I hope they will - the less restrictive that 3P is, the longer it'll last. If there are lots of arbitrary rules like this then it's going to put off the very people that their awesome open products (like the Pathfinder Adventures) are going to attract.

I'm sure that Jason and Monte can get this right;

Say it with me now! I do believe!

;P

tfad

My group and I had a chance to play with some of the goodies from Alpha 2 over the weekend. Although we didn't get as much gaming done as we would've liked, our Paladin player got very sick, we did have some comments and interesting discussions on Alpha 2. I apologize if any of these comments are repeated from our Alpha 1 playtest report, or elsewhere on the boards.

tfad

***

Elven Immunities (p.5): It occurred to me that I'd not be sure, as DM, how to handle something like sleeping pollen etc. against an Elf. The immunities paragraph explicitly states magic sleep effects, but it also follows that as Elves don't sleep, they should be immune to all sleep effects. In AD&D, we had the awesome explanation in the 'Complete Book of Elves' about how it works and what the Elves do instead of sleeping. Is this the same for Golarion Elves? A tighter explanation paragraph would solve this.

Barbarian (p.8-11): Our group is not usually interested in Barbarians, but the addition of the 'rage points' mechanic generated genuine interest and excitement for the class. It's a great way to open the class up and expand what it can do. We have to respectfully disagree with those on the boards who "don't want to worry about managing points and just want to hit things" and "it's now no longer a class for introducing newbies to the game". Rage points are no more complicated that HP, GP, (P)PP, spell slots etc. and no class should be dumbed down to the point that it is relegated to newbie status. How would the hard-core cleric players feel if their class was the one dumbed down? There are plenty of ways to introduce new players to the game.
Regarding the rage powers, we had a little feedback. Namely there should be more powers to choose from. In line with Conan, as the stereotypical barbarian, there should be a power that grants a move action (as he's always pouncing like a panther on ape-beasts etc.) and one that eliminates the improvised weapon penalties (as he's always squashing things with giant rocks, fully loaded treasure chests etc.).
There should also be a way of spending more rage points than you have. Barbarians are all about exploding until their heart explodes and a way of trading HP or ability burn for extra instant-use rage points when you have spent all of your rage point pool is an absolute must. We thought a rate of about 5HP per RP was a fair one, although the rules would have to explicitly state that these rage points could not be spent on the Renewed Vigor power. The alignment change was also nice.
In a word - awesome! We can see using barbarians for more than just a playtest, the new mechanics are great and have added interest where there wasn't any before.

Druid (p.14-18) and the new Polymorph stuff (p.81-): Again, we're not a group who uses Druids on a regular basis, but the rules changes generated some interest. Druids were a little overpowered in 3.5 and no one in our group really wanted to play as one because they were never sure exactly what they could polymorph into and just looking at the MM for different forms is kinda intimidating! Like Astral Construct, the polymorphing stuff is now much simpler and easier to balance (although as noted elsewhere on these boards, the spells do all assume that the caster is medium size). We liked this approach and thought is was an elegant solution to an ongoing problem. The slightly more sensible weapon proficiencies and the improved animal companion, including the option to not take one and rely on the Animal Friendship style spells to gain a domain, were also well received. I, personally, was the most impressed and, when I do finally get a chance to play rather than DM, I will be giving the druid a go.

Paladin (p.19-23): Now we're discussing our group's (probably) favorite class! We all like the Paladin as they are quintessential heroes. Anyone who was at Dragonmeet 2000 in London may remember one of our players - he was the Chinese guy shouting that Paladins need to be comparable in virtue to Optimus Prime! That's how strongly our group likes Paladins. So what did we make of the changes after having played with them?
Alignment (p.19) and Code of Conduct (p.22): We were very relived by these bits. As a group we've never bought into the whole 'Paladin of (X)' cr*p and feel very strongly against it. Paladins are Lawful Good and a champion of any other alignment (or bizarre cause) are exactly that, not Paladins but 'Champions of (X)'. Thank you for keeping this the way (we feel) it should be. It was also great to see a Code of Conduct that makes sense and is short and to the point. The more words and stipulations you cram into the CoC (!) for a Paladin, the easier it is for decidedly non-Lawful Good DMs to unfairly screw around with your character and the harder it is for the player to come up with their own unique Code of Conduct that adheres to the game rules. This is something we've loved doing for years and is a great part of the Paladin. Thank you.
Detect Evil (p.19): We are aware that a lot of D&D DMs hate this ability with a vengeance, claiming it ruins their plots as the Paladin strides in then Scan/Smites the BBEG. We were a little nervous this ability was going to disappear, but were very glad it's still there. The above problem is with how the game is run and the pillar of virtue and good that is the Paladin needs to have this ability.
Smite Evil (p.19-20): We saw quite a lot of talk about 'more smites please' online, but we think that the class now has enough. If every attack can be a smite then it ceases to become special. With a high BAB and a great weapon selection, the Paladin is a great fighter. Please don't make any drastic changes to smite.
Aura of (X) (p.20-): The new auras are nice. They add to the role of the Paladin as sort of central figure, holding everyone together, whilst protecting themselves from the things we feel a Paladin should be protected from. Any of the classic heroes from old movies or the 80s cartoon action hour that could be Paladins, have at some point all shrugged off some sort of mind control whilst yelling something like "I'll never join your evil scheme! Never!" ;) Yeah, we liked these as well balanced extras to a class that badly needed some class features.
Divine Bond (p.20-21): We all like the Paladin's mount and have had some strange mounts including a sea snake and a dragon. However it was nice to see a new option that will probably see an awful lot of use. The argument of a mount not being useful in the dungeon is as old as the class itself and we thought a lot of players will take this ability and it reminds us of the AD&D holy sword quests.
However, for ease of reference the rules need a table with the weapon properties and their equivalent enhancement bonus a la the Soul Knife class in the XPH. We do not want to have to flip through pages of the DMG to get this info, it should be there with the other class information.
We know that there was a lot of discussion on the boards about making this ability usable more than once per day. Either way our group okay with this, but it is important that if the chosen weapon can be used more than once a day then the Paladin's mount can also be summoned more than once a day. Don't forget the trusty mount in favor of the new, shiny toys.
Remove Disease (p.21): now works. It's much easier to imagine Paladins being sent or called to areas of plague as they can now do something about it. Logistically, when this ability was per week, the Paladin was peeing into the wind when it came to fighting disease. Great fix.
Holy Champion (p.22): Great crown for the class and brilliant reward for sticking with it! We loved this - another awesome, well done!

Sorcerer (p.26-32): If there's a class we love as much or more than the Paladin, it's the Sorcerer, over 50% of our group plays Sorcerers on a regular (i.e. every character) basis. We know this class, it's strengths and weaknesses, very well. We knew that they would get the better HD and the cantrips at will, but what did we make of the changes?
Class skills (p.26): When will Sorcerers get Diplomacy as a class skill?!?! The class suffers from not having enough class skills based on their primary attribute and the descriptions of the sorcerer (and the mechanics of having the highest charisma in the group) always put it as a central role. At the very least they need to have the option of switching Intimidate for Diplomacy, but seriously, they need both as class skills. Why can't you play a diplomatic sorcerer?!?! Grr! ;P This is real annoyance for our group and we'd like to see Diplomacy on that skill list. If it's not going on the list then can we have an explanation as to why? We'd like to hear the rationale behind not adding it as it makes so much sense to add it. You've got to fix the big things before addressing everything else.
Bloodlines (p.26-32): In a word - awesome! These abilities were enough to get our regular Wizard player to ask if he could switch from Wiz. to Sorc.! The abilities are nice and the bonus feats are good too. Although, much like the rant about Diplomacy above, we were expecting them to get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. It makes sense and fits with the description of the class. Unless Sorcerer's are going to get a flavor re-write, which we don't want, then they need Eschew Materials as a bonus feat.
Obviously we didn't get a chance to test all the bloodlines, but the testing we did do left us happy with the results. Although from reading various threads on these boards, we understand that the bloodlines may get a bit of a re-write as not everyone was as happy as with them as we were. We did have one other comment though:
One of Us (p.32): This makes no sense at all. Why would people still love a rotting Sorcerer, even with a huge Charisma? Wouldn't your average villager run in fear? How is rotting a good reward for sticking with Sorcerer all the way up to level 20? It's a great mechanical bonus but the description of the power is lazy and nonsensical. Please change this for the final release, otherwise we predict an entire generation of Sorcerers who'll retire at level 19, or take a level of (X) just to ensure they don't start rotting. It's hardly a good thing, is it? ;)

Skills (p.36-): YES! Thank you for putting ranks back in! The new system exceeded our expectations and is a better system than the original 3.X. There was quite a lot of discussion about whether this was enough on these boards, but we were largely happy with the result. All of our players were happy with their new skill lists and, as a group with a love of cross-class skills, everyone was able to afford everything they wanted skill-wise. The +3 bonus to class skills is great and offers a real incentive to pick up all/most of your class skills, at least at one rank. This is important as the only incentive to choose class over cross-class in 3.X was the horrible 2 points per rank restriction. Also, there should be a different version of the Skill Focus feat that offers an increased class skill bonus. Perhaps increasing the bonus from +3, to +5, with the prerequisite being a number of ranks in a number of different class skills. With the new freedoms opened up, it'd be great to see some sort of further incentive to stick with the class skills.
We had two points to discuss about skills.
Extra Skill Points at every other level: I've championed this cause here. In summary, characters should be awarded an additional 2 points at every other level, on the levels when they don't gain feats. This has two benefits, being uniformity (something that 3P is moving towards and the goal of a tidy system should be on every RPG design list) and extra skill points without breaking the basic assumptions of the skill system. There's quite a lot of info and analysis of the math behind this as opposed to other systems in the above link.
Bring back the Scry skill: Please bring back Scry as a skill. It works so much better than the will saves in 3.5 and 3P has already taken a step in the direction of magical skills with the Fly skill. It really, really needs to be in there and makes a lot of sense. We understand this is a minority vote, but it's really important to us, as a gaming group, and 3P is the first and only platform we have to shout about this. We've continued to use Scry since it was dropped in 3.5 and never had any compatibility issues. If any of the designers want a more detailed look at this, we'd be more than happy to help in any way we can. :)
Swim (p.38): Thank you for returning Swim to being a Str. skill.

Feats! Not too much to say here, other than:
Combat Expertise (p.50): Pasted from our previous report, linked to above Not really worth taking now as a feat. This is a real shame as it was a group favorite for all classes from level 3 and up. We understand that it needs to be reworked to fit in with the new (and improved) Power Attack rules, but now it is pants. It would work better if it was the same as 'two handed power attack' all the time and offered twice your intelligence bonus to AC for one times the penalty.
Selective Channeling (p.51): Thank you! Just what we asked for!
Turn Elemental/Outsider (p.52): Ditto! Thank you again!

Cover (p.58-59): Again, this is a needless change that is too difficult to work out if you're not using figures. There was nothing wrong or broken with the 3.X cover rules and if it isn't broken, don't fix it!
Grapple (p.61-62): Whilst the Alpha 1 grapple rules where an improvement, the Alpha 2 rules are doubly so. They eliminated the confusion and led to a great scene in our game with our grapple-prone 15th level Wizard trying to wrestle a 2HD tiefling chef with a hand full of spices! The new rules are simple and applying the grappled condition to both grapplers means it is now, as it should be, not a good idea to start wrestling foes when surrounded. Although we didn't try it, these rules will definitely make a mass-grapple of 3+ grappling characters a lot easier. And you know this will happen at some point.... ;P

There's not much to say about spells and magic, other than well done! We looked at the polymorph stuff above, but also just wanted to comment on:
Eyebite (p.87): The 3P version is better than the 3.5 version, but not as good as the 3.0 version. Good middle ground, but it did upset one of our players who loves the spell and wanted to know if there was any plans to revert to the 3.0 version. She's not hopeful though. :)
Reincarnate (p.97-98): Yes! At last a usable version of this spell! Thank you!
XP Costs (p.99): Not an essential change for us, as we didn't mind XP costs, but an interesting one. There are a lot of 3rd party materials which work on XP costs, e.g. Oathbound by Bastion Press has some nice evolutionary paths which cost XP and various books by Fantasy Flight Games which have 'schools' in them, letting you trade XP to learn different techniques in war, magic etc. Adjusting the base XP charts (as is necessary, with the 3.X ones not being in the SRD) had very little effect on the values ascribed to these other costs as 3P stuck to the same scale (i.e. 1000s of points instead of 10s etc.). However, removing XP costs from the game entirely does leave these products in a bit of a Limbo. It's the first point against back compatibility that we've seen in Pathfinder, but it is one. Whilst our group is happy to continue using or modify these costs, we felt i worth mentioning.

Staves (p.106): We like the fact that a staff is now a permanent item, we have been recharging staves in our games for years so it's nice to see it in the rules. However the actual mechanics on how to recharge your staff need looking at. We know that this has been thoroughly discussed and will be addressed with Alpha 3, so are waiting to see what happens. We did have a rules question based on the 3P set up though. As it reads, a Paladin could recharge a Wizard's Staff of Dispelling. Is this intentional? We can't see that this breaks the mechanics of the game, but if this is not intentional, then it would need addressing in the recharge rules re-write.
No XP Costs for Crafting Magic Items (p.106-): As stated above, this is not a deal breaker for us as we didn't mind XP costs. Increasing the GP costs is a great way for the DM to control magic item output, although, again we've never had a problem with the rules as they stood. As pointed out elsewhere on the boards, there needs to be a rule for starting off at higher levels, otherwise crafty PCs can double their starting wealth by making everything.
Item slots (p.109) & Body Slot Affinities (p.115): To be blunt, this is the sort of arbitrary cr*p that us Paizo fans regularly complain comes from WotC. D&D is an amazing game of imagination and not a computer game, limited by programming and graphics. As such, classics like Gauntlets of Ogre Power should be just as possible as Hats of Ogre Power, Boots of Ogre Power, Cloaks of Ogre Power and Rings of Ogre Power. The rules prevent the same type of bonus from stacking, so there is no reason not to allow magic items to function the same, no matter the slot they occupy. There are cultural considerations also, e.g. an African-inspired tribe of people may prefer strength enhancing boots, as they watch the gazelles run across the plains, leg muscles rippling - that is strength to them, being able to run so fast, leap so high etc. Using the 3P set up and this arbitrary rule, I now have to start house ruling magic items from non-generic D&D cultures. Come on Paizo! You're better than this!

Before wrapping up we also wanted to comment on this:

Monte Cook Joins the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game™ Team
Co-creator of 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons® to act as Rules Consultant

Paizo Publishing®, LLC today announced that Monte Cook, the co-creator of 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons and author of the 3.5 PHB and DMG as well as the Ptolus™ campaign setting and the recent Book of Experimental Might™, has joined the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game team as a Rules Consultant.

"This is going to be a lot of fun," said Monte Cook. "Pathfinder is a fresh spin on a rules system that I love and the guys at Paizo are great to work with. They produce nothing but the highest quality products."

"Monte Cook is a legend of third edition and of the Open Gaming movement," said Paizo's Publisher, Erik Mona. "He's also a great DM, and has the best mind for mechanics I've ever seen. To have one of the original third edition designers helping us with the Pathfinder RPG is like a dream come true. With Monte's involvement, I am certain that the future of the edition he helped to create will be very long and very fruitful."

"I am really excited to be working with Monte on this project," said Paizo's Lead Designer, Jason Bulmahn. "His advice has been a great help to the Pathfinder RPG. When it comes to rules design and knowledge of the 3.5 system, there is absolutely no one better."

Monte Cook will also be contributing an introduction to the final Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hardcover, scheduled for an August 2009 release.

Our group had a geekgasm at this. What a coup for Paizo! w00t!

In summary we've really enjoyed being a part of the open playtest so far and will continue to post our thoughts up until it closes for the final release. If our comments on Alpha 2 seem negative, that's only because we didn't want to type "I love you Paizo, thank you!" at least once per page of the Alpha. We loved the changes so far, except for a few of the crazies that have obviously only crept in because you guys are working so hard to give us all what we want. Keep up the good work and thank you!

Peace,

tfad & Group

Well... my primary concern with Psionics and the point-based system is that it essentially gives the psionic character more uses of high-level stuff. The spellcasters have limited numbers of higher level spells; they can't sacrifice their low level spells that they'd never really cast anyway to power more high level stuff.

Thanks for the feedback - it's great to hear what the staff at Paizo think about the things we (customers) love. I think Azzy answered your point.

There’s a problem, though, with this picture. While it’s true that a 5th-level, for example, psion is capable of manifesting more 3rd-level powers (5, at base power points per day) than a 5th-level wizard can cast 3rd-level spells (1, at base spells per level), the wizard’s lower level spells scale with caster level while a psion’s powers don’t automatically scale with manifester level (you have to pay extra power points to augment lower level powers). For instance, let’s compare a psion’s dissipating touch to the wizard’s shocking grasp. Relatively similar powers—touch attack does 1d6 damage. When cast by our example 5th-level psion and wizard, shocking grasp deals 5d6 damage using a single 1st-level slot (the equivalent of 1 power point) while the psion deals 1d6 for the same expenditure of resources. If the psion wanted to deal 5d6 damage with this power like the wizard, he’s have to spend an extra 4 power points to augment it–spending a total of 5 power points (the equivalent of a 5th-level spell slot) and still counting as a 1st-level power for minor globe of invulnerability, and related abilities.

The great things about the power point system are that 1) You can choose to 'go nova' (i.e. it's an option, with draw backs) and 2) Spending points 'feels' different to spell slots. If you change the point mechanic to something similar to spells then it's a step towards the mess that is 4th Ed., where everyone's powers work the same way. I'd not be against changing from pp to something else, but that something else would have to 'feel' different from spells. I don't think 'per day' would cut it though. Psionics is great because the flavor is supported by an interesting mechanic.

Like I said above, blowing all of your points in one go is an option. It's an option that is more pronounced in the psionic classes than the non-, but is still there in most of the other classes. There are drawbacks to doing so and if PCs are doing this all the time, comfortable that there'll be no more combat/use for pp that day, then it's the DM's job to mix things up a bit. No players should feel that they have 'cracked' it - there needs to be excitement and uncertainty in every good game. I have to say though, I've never played in a game where this is a problem. In fact, we've found the psion/wilder out classed by the cleric/sorcerer/wizard more than the other way around, for the point raised above by Azzy.

Everyone's game is different though, as all players are people!

Peace,

tfad

The problem isn't the flavor... it's the fact that psionics have a STRONG tradition of being overpowered, in EVERY edition of the game.(SNIP) Every 3rd Edition game I've been in that's incorporated psionics (and yes, I've been in more than one...) has resulted in the psionic character being very overpowered.

We've not had a problem with the 3.5 stuff, yes 3.0 was broken, badly, but the 3.5 psionics worked well. If anything they're slightly below the core casters.

I'm interested to know if you think there is a problem with the balance here. If so, then kinda like the Alphas and the open playtest, perhaps some of the psionic fans on the boards could help suggest some fixes.

Peace,

tfad

In fact, the bloodline mechanic provides a hige potential "hook" for storytelling by adventure-writers; it seems like Nick Logue could keep us reeling for days with the types of bloodlines his warped imagination would come up with.

You're right. I'm scared.

Let's move on before Nick Logue turns up and proves it....

;P

tfad

We're not sure yet what Hellknights are going to look like, mechanically. Wes can't decide if he likes them better as a prestige class or a standard class or something else.

Bloatmages get a feat soon and I've heard whispers of a prestige class somewhere down the line, but those are only whispers so who really knows what's going to happen? *shrug*

I'd like to throw a vote in for not making every organization that has a name into a PrC. There really isn't any need and it's quickly crossing into the rules bloat/unseen mechanics problems territory. Also it seems a double waste after all of the effort Paizo are putting into the base classes.

Bloatmages do rock though! On toast! I don't really think they need a PrC to remain as cool as they are. I feat, I can live with, but not a whole PrC. I'd rather read an awesome short story or something about the Bloatmages than have another PrC. Plus, when you start adding PrC for every organization, the members of said org. all start to have similar stat-ups and become less individual. And I like what's been done with the iconics e.g. low int. rogue etc. I'd like that sort of open mindedness to be applied to stating up all these cool things we're reading about on Golarion.

Say No! to PrC!

;P

Peace,

tfad

Thanks for the update! Can't wait for the Ranger/Bard goodness!

*more air guitar*

Seriously, I wish I had something other than my enthusiasm and wallet to throw at this! Every time I try to think of a sensible comment, I just freak out on teh awesomeness. I am really excited by what I've seen so far.

Peace,

tfad

Second, you should be able to go over your points limit!

Ooh! Nice idea! I like it.... Not sure on the maths, but great idea. Perhaps based at a rate similar to the point burn on Psionics? Hmm....

Thanks!

tfad

*air guitar*

August can't come fast enough!

I suspect that a large part of the pressure for a new edition is financial. MtG is the top earner for Hasbro. D&D is somewhere below neopets and Mr. Potato head.

emphasis mine

Seriously?!? Is this true? That's awesome! I mean I wish roleplay was bigger, but who doesn't want a t-shirt that says "My hobby got scr*w'd by Mr. Potato Head!" or "Dragon vs. Potato Head! Round 1 !"

I'd totally wear those shirts....

;p

Peace,

tfad

Very interesting read - thanks for posting! I'm looking forward to my group's game this coming weekend.... The Paladin and Sorcerer are going to get a thorough testing! ;)

Peace,

tfad

Loved it! Wish I had more to add to the conversation, but just, loved it! I will be sharing this with my group!

tfad

I got my hands on it! In a word - AWESOME! So much so, that my wife and I immediately ordered 2 for our friends and started planning our next campaign! I'm gonna open out the map and read it again later, putting the countries in relation to each other.

It was quite hard to read though, and I had to keep stopping as the book was making my mind bubble over with ideas and I wasn't taking in what I was reading. :)

Well done! I'm put off of typing a review, given my past experiences trying to get that thing to work, but ***** stars! I want more stuff about the other planets and I want it now!

Yours excitedly

;P

tfad

Just to help out:

Forum link

And, thread link (Language not safe for work). It is his first post in the thread, in the last paragraph.

I just read this - I can't believe how abusive to us/Paizo they're being over there! And look at some of the poster's signatures! Just.... wow. Not safe for work? Shouldn't that be 'not safe for anyone, ever'. Maybe if Frank and K were more used to this type of board, well, that could be the reason they thought to behave the way they did.

Peace,

tfad

On the plus side it might mean we finally get the long requested Oriental Adventures update.

Did you see

THIS?

Plans to introduce some “sword and planet” into PF as they move along. “John Carter”. Golarian is just one world – idea of the “red planet” and “green planet”. Even ruined wastelands like Dark Sun. Dark Sun might be on something like the red planet.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Thanks for posting the report - makes for great reading, shame I wasn't there!

tfad

(Blade II, blech)

I could be wrong, but I'm sure that I read he did everything the suits wanted for Blade II, in order to have the freedom he wanted for Hellboy. Put me and my wife into the 'loved Hellboy/couldn't stand Blade II' camp.

Also, was I dreaming or was that Cat from Red Dwarf in Blade II?

Peace,

tfad

KHANNNNNNNNNN!

Exactly how I feel!

These multiclass rules are RESTRICTIVE. If I want a Ranger 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 10, I should be able to have that. 4E is becoming as restrictive as 2e, it seems.

Can we not equate the glorious days of my childhood and 2nd Ed. with 4E please? ;p

Seriously though, I like to keep up to date on the 4E reveals as they happen, but I've refused to buy anything WotC since the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. The more I see, the more I shake my head. I saw the preview they did with the 'power cards' and, combined with a bunch of miniatures on a beautifully painted battle mat, just makes me think "Heroquest" in the worst possible way.
These rules seem like just another step towards an overly simplistic yet impossibly arbitrary and ludicrously mushroom inspired rule set.

I can't equally split my training between the priesthood and honing my larcenous talents? My arrows fire further if I aim diagonally? Seriously, WTF?

(/threadjack/ How does this work in 3D e.g. in an ariel battle? Can I fire arrows further at 11 o'clock up than 10 o'clock down? /end threadjack/)

tfad

The original 3.0 campaings I ran did not have the push for stat boosters. The players focused more on the items that gave them combat options or additional powers. Of course this was also largely the fact that the ability boosting spells last 1 hour/caster level under 3.0, allowing a wizard to do some long term buffs at mid to high levels.

Ditto - we've been using 3.0 since it's release and, too, we've never suffered from this 'item ability boosting obsession' that seems to run through 3.5. Again, the more popular items have always been those ones that do exciting things that the players can't do themselves. Also, we were never sure what all the fuss was about the Bull Strength etc. spells being too powerful at 1hr/lvl. We've used it and it's never been broken, although I freely admit that the closest we've ever come to 'power gaming' was discussing the potential in a Pal/Sor multiclass character. ;)

The notion of 'body slots' and particularly of specific items only being effective in particular slots is just silly, IMO.

A Strength item could be leggings, boots, arm bands, bracers, rings, a mantle or cloak, a breastplate, gloves, a belt, a pendant that hangs over your heart or even a freaking hat, for all I care. It's a spell. Put on an item.(SNIP) Nor do I see any concerns about putting multiple spells on a single item. If my Longsword can be +1 Flaming Burst and Holy, then there's no reason why my Mask of +2 Charisma can't also be a Mask of Disguise and have the effects of Eyes of Darkvision,
(SNIP)Entirely too many of these item slot 'rules' are arbitrary and kinda pointless, IMO. The DMG could use a lot less of this sort of stuff and a lot more silly charts like in the 1e DMG (Different herbs! A bunch of mystical associations for gemstones! Noble titles!(SNIP)

Emphasis mine

YES! No need for me to type my feelings now - all said for me, thanks to Set. /nods to Set sagely/

Peace,

tfad